Skip to main content

Full text of "Indian home rule"

See other formats


Alice Stone Bleckwell 



M. K. G A N D H I 

AS. 6 


Books by C. F. Andrews 

The Claim for Independence 

Within or without the British Empire Price As. 8. 

Non-Co operation 

The Whys and Wherefores Price A*. 8. 

Indians in South Africa 

Helots within the British Empire Price Ac . 8. 

The Drink and Opium Evil 

Miss La Molte says : " A nation that; can nubjuRate 300,000,000 
helpless Indian people, and then turn tnern into drug 
idiots, for the sake of revenue, is a nition, whioh commits 
a cold-blooded atrooir,y unparalleled by any atrooity com- 
mitted in the rage and heat of war." Price As. 4. 

How India can be Free 

" I^dia has no need to take the sword in order to be free : 8he 
has a muoh more powerful weapon ready to her hand. If 
once her people unisediy decide to be free tbey o*n bo free." 

Price As. 4. 

Indian Independence : 

The immediate need 

To be in subjeation to a band of foreign rulers, ifSeeley's 
historcal m^xim is true, oannor, but lead to national 
deterioration. This is why the need for independence is so 
immediate. Tbis is way it oannor, be postponed. The verdioc 
of the most sober English Historians is this. thar. India, 
without a single baud oeing lifted to strike a single blow, 
can aetermine her own destiny. The sheer weight of 
numbers* — three hundred and twenty millions against a fpw 
thousands, — is so great, that if these numbers could once 
speak with one mind, their will must be oarried out. 

Price As. 8. 

GANCiH 12 Co., Publishers, A^adras. 




Reprinted with a Dew foreword by the author 





P (if" 



The doctrine of violence is more widely believ- 
ed in than is generally realised. The votaries of 
violence can be divided into two classes. Some, 
a small and dwindling class, believe in it and are 
prepared to act according to their faith Others, a 
very large class always, and now, after bitter ex- 
periences of the failure of constitutional agitation, 
larger than ever, believe in violence, but that belief 
does not them to action. It disables them 
from work on any basis other than force. The 
belief in violence serves to dissuade them from all 
other kinds of work or^sacrifice. In both cases 
the evil is great. 

There can be no reconstruction or hope for 
this land of ours, unless we eradicate the worship of 
force in all its forms, and establish work on a basis 
other than violence. A refutation of the doctrine 
of violence is, in the present situation of the 
affairs of our country, more necessary than ever. 

To this end, nothing better can be conceived 
than the publication and wide distribution of 
Mr. Gandhi's famous book. 

It was extremely patriotic of Messrs. Ganesh 
and Company to have readily agreed to undertake 
the work when they were approached with the 

Satyagrah Sabha,] 

Madias, C. Rajagopalachar. 



I have re-read this booklet more thai* 
once. The value at the present moment lies, 
in re-printing it as it is. But if I had to 
revise it, there is only one word I would 
alter in accordance with a. promise made to 
an English friend. She took exception to 
my use of the word ^prostitute ' in speaking 
of the Parliament. Her fine taste recoiled 
from the indelicacy of the expression. I 
remind the reader that the booklet purports 
to be a free translation of the original which 
is in Gujarati. 

After years of endeavour to put into 
practice the views expressed in the following 
pages, I feel that the way shown therein is 
the only true way to Swaraj. Satyagrah— 
the law of love is the Law of life. Depar- 
ture from it leads to disintegration. A firm 
adherence to it leads to regeneration. 



88th May, 1919. 




Beply to Critics 

It is certainly my good fortune that 

this booklet of mine is receiving wide atten- 
tion. The original is in Gujarati. It had a 
chequered career. It was first published in 
the columns of the ' Indian Opinion ' of 
South Africa. It was written in 1908 during 
my return voyage from London to South 
Africa in answer to the Indian school of vio- 
lence, and its prototype iu South Africa, I 
•came in contact with every known Indian 
anarchist in London. Their bravery impressed 
me, but I feel that their zeal was misguided. 
I felt that violence was no remedy for India's 
ills, and that her civilization required the use 
of a different and higher weapon for self- 
protection. The Satyagrah of South Africa 
was still an infant hardly two years old- But 
it had developed sufficiently to permit me to 
write of it with some degree of confidence. It 


was so much appreciated that it was published 
as a booklet. It attracted some attention in 
India. The Bombay Government prohibited 
its circulation. I replied by publishing its 
translation. I thought that it was due to my 
English friends that they should know its 
contents. In my opinion it is a book which 
can be put into the hands of a child. It tea- 
ches che gospei of love in the place of that of 
hate. It replaces violence with self-sacrifice. 
It pits soul force against brute force. It has 
gong through several editions and I commend 
it to those who would care to read it. I with- 
draw nothing except one word of it, and that 
in deference to a lady friend. I have given 
the reason for the alteration in the preface^to 
the Indian edition. 

The booklet is a severe condemnation of 
'modem civilization.' It was written in 1908. 
My conviction is deeper to-day than ever. I 
feel that if India would discard ' modern civili- 
zation' she. can only gain by doing so. 

But I would warn the reader against 
thinking that lam to-day aiming at the Swaraj 
described therein. I know that India is not 
ripe for it. It may seem an impertinence to 


say so. But such is my conviction. I am 
individually working for the self-rule pictured 
therein. But to-day my corporate activity is 
undoubtedly devoted to the attainment of 
Parliamentary Swaraj in accordance with the 
wishes of the people of India. I am not aiming 
at destroying railways or hospitals, though I 
would certainly welcome their natural 
destruction. Neither railways nor hospitals 
are a test of a high and pure civilization. At 
best they are a necessary evil. Neither adds 
one inch to the moral stature of a nation. Nor 
am I aiming at a permanent destruction of 
law courts, much as I regard it as a ' consum- 
mation devoutly to be wished for.' Still less 
am I trying to destroy all machinery and mills. 
It requires a higher simplicity and renuucia- 
tion than the people &re to-day prepared for. 

The only part of the programme which is 
now being carried out in its entirety is that of 
non-violence. But I regret to have to confess 
that even that is not being carried out in the 
spirit of the book. . If it were, India would 
establish Swaraj in a day. If India adopted 
the doctrine of love as an active part of her 
religion and introduced it in her politics, Swaraj 


would descend upon India from heaven. But I 
am painfully aware that that event is far off 
as yet. 

I offer these comments because I observe 
that much is being quoted from the booklet to 
discredit the present movement. I have even 
seen writings suggesting that I am' playing a 
deep game, that I am using the present turmoil 
to foist my fads on India, and am making 
religious experiments at India's expense. I cau 
only answer that Satyagrah is made of sterner 
stuff. There is nothing reserved and nothing 
Secret in it. A portion of the whole theory 
of life described in 'Hind Swaraj' is undoubtedly 
being carried into practice. There is no 
danger attendant upon the whole of it being 
practised. But it is not right to scare away 
people by reproducing from my writings 
passages that are irrelevant to the issue before 
the country. 


Young India, 26th January, 1921. 






The Congress aad Its Officials.... 



The Partition of Bengal 



The Discontent and Unrest .... 



What is Swaraj ? 



The Condition of England .... 






Why was India Lost ? 



The condition of India 



Do. Kailways 



Do. Hindus and Mahomedafis 



Do. Lawyers 



Do. Doctors 



What is True Civilization ? ..... 



How can India become Free?.... 



Italy and India 



Brute Force 



Passive Resistance 











Appendices .... 123 



The Congress and Its Officials 

Reader : Just at present there is a Home Rule 
wave passing over India. All our countrymen ap- 
pear to be pining for National Independence. A 
similar spirit pervades them even in South Afri -a, 
Indians seem to be eager after acquiring rights. Will 
you explain your views in this matter ? 

Editor : You have well puj; the question, but 
the answer is not easy. One of the objects of a 
newspaper is to understand the popular feeling and 
to give, expression to it ; another is to arouse among 
the people certain desirable sentiments ; and the 
third is fearlessly to expose popular defects. The 
exercise of all these three functions is involved in 
answering your question. To a certain extent trie 
people's will has to be expressed ; certain senti- 
ments will need to be fostered, and defects will 
have to be brought to light. But, as you have asked 
the question, it is my duty to answer it. 

Reader : Do you then consider that a desire 
for Home Rule has been created among us ? 


Editor : That desire gave rise to the National 
Congress The choice of the word "National" 
implies it. 

Reader : That, surely, is not the case. Young 
India seems to ignore the Congress. It is consi- 
dered to be an instrument for perpetuating British 


Editor : That opinion is not justified. Had 
not the Grand Old Man of India prepared the soil, 
our young men could not have even spoken about 
Home Rule. How can we forget what Mr. Hume 
has written, how he has lashed us into action, and 
with what effort he has awakened us, in order to 
achieve the objects of the Congress? Sir William 
Wedderburn has given his body, mind and money 
to the fame cause. His writings are worthy of 
perusal to this day. Professor Gokhale, in order 
to prepare the Nation, embraced poverty and gave 
twenty years of his life. Even now, he is living in 
poverty. The late Justice Buddrudin Tyebji was 
also one of those who, through the Congress, sowed 
the beed of Home Rule. Similarly in Bengal, Madras, 
the Punjab and other places, there have been lovers 
of India and members of the Congress, both Indian 
and English. 

Reader : Stay, stay, you are going too far, you 
are straying away from my question, I have asked 
you about Home or Self-Rule; you are discussing 


foreign rule. I do not desire to hear English names, 
and you are giving me such names. In these cir- 
cumstances, I do not think we can ever meet. I 
shall be pleased if you will confine yourself to 
Home Rule. All other wise talk will not satisfy me. 

Editor : You are impatient. I cannot afford to 
be likewise. If you will bear with me for a while, 
I think you will find tnat you will obtain what you 
want. Remember the old proverb that the* tree does 
not grow in one day. The fact that you have 
checked me, and that you do not want to hear about 
the well-wishers of India, shows that, for you at 
any rate, Home Rule is yet far away. If we had 
many like you, we would never make any advance. 
This thought is worthy of your attention. 

Reader : It seems to me that you simply want 
to put me off by talking round and round. Those 
whom you consider to be well-wishers of India are 
not such in my estimation. Why, then, should I 
listen to your discourse on such people ? What has 
he whom you consider to be the father of the nation 
done for it ? He says that the English Governors 
will do justice, and that we should co-operate with 

Editor : I must tell you with all gentleness 
that it must be a matter of shame for us that you 
should speak about that great man, in terms of dis- 
respect. Just look at his work. He has dedicated 
his life to the service of India. We have learned 


what we know from hirn. It was the respected 
Dadabhai who taught us that the Eoglish had 
sucked our life-blood. What does it matter that, to- 
day, his trust is still in the English nation? 
Is Dadabhai less to be honoured because, in the 
exuberance of youth, we ate prepared to go a step 
further ? Are we, on that account, wiser than he ? 
It is a mark of wisdom not to kick against the very 
step from which we have risen higher. The removal 
of a step from a staircase brings down the whole of 
it. When, out of infancy we grow into youth, 
we do not despise infancy, but, on the contrary, we 
recall with affection the days of our childhood. If, 
after many years of study, a teacher were to 
teach me something, and if I were to build 
a little more on the foundation laid by that 
teacher, 'I would not, on that account, be considered 
wiser than the teacher. He would always com- 
mand my respect. Such is the case with the Gran<} 
Old Man of India. We must admit that he is the 
author of Nationalism. 

Reader : You have spoken well. I can now 
understand that we must look upon Mr. Dadabhai 
with respect. Without him and men like him, we 
would probably not have the spirit that fires usV. 
How can the same be said of Professor Gokhale ? 
He has constituted himself a great friend of the Eng- 
lish ; he says that we have to learn a great deal from 
them, that we have to learn their political 


wisdom, before we can talk of Home Rule. I am 
tired of reading his speeches. 

Editor : If you are tired, it only betrays your 
impatience, We believe that those who are dis- 
contented with the slowness of their parents, and 
are angry because the parents would not run with 
their children, are considered disrespectful to their 
parents. Professor Gokhale occupies the place of 
a parent. What does it matter if he cannot run 
with us ? A nation that is desirous of securing 
Home Rule cannot afford to despise its ancestors. 
We shall become useless if we lack respect for out- 
siders. Only men with mature thoughts are capable of 
ruling themselves and not the hasty-tempered. More- 
over, how many Indians were there like Professor 
Gokhale, when he gave himself to Indian education? 
I verily believe that whatever Professor Gokhale 
does he does with pure motives and with a view to 
serving India. His devotion to the Motherland is 
so great, that he would give his life for it if neces- 
sary. Whatever he says is said not to flatter anyone 
but because he believes it to be true. We are bound, 
therefore, to entertain the highest regard for him. 

Reader : Are we, then, to follow him in every 
respect ? 

Editor : I never said any such thing. If we 
conscientiously differed from him, the learned 
Professor himself would advise us to follow the dic- 
tates of our conscience rather than him. Our chief 


purpose is not to cry down his work, but to believe 
that he is infinitely greater than we, and to feel 
assured that compared with his work for India, 
ours is infinitesimal. Several newspapers write 
disrespectfully of him. It is our duty to protest 
against such writings. We should consider men 
like Professor G-okhile to be the pillars of Home 
Rule. It is a bad habit to say that another man's 
thoughts are bad and ours only are good, and that 
those holding different views from ours are the 
enemies of the country. 

Reader: I now begin to understand some- 
what your meaning. I shall have to think the 
matter over, but what you say about Mr. Hume 
and Sir William Wedderburn is beyond comprehen- 

Editor : The same rule holds good for the 
English as for the Indians. I can never subscribe 
to the statement that all Englishmen are bad. 
Many Englishmen desire Home Rule for India. 
That the English people are somewhat more selfish 
than others is true, but that does not prove that 
every Englishman is bad. We who seek justice will 
have to do justice to others. Sir William does not 
wish ill to India — that should be enough for us. As 
we proceed, you will see that, if we act justly, India 
will be sooner free. You will see, too, that, if we 
shun every Englishman as an enemy, Home Rule 
will be delayed. But if we are just to them, we 


shall receive their support in our progress towards 
the goal. 

Reader : All this seems to me at present to be 
simply nonsensical. English support and the 
obtaining of Home Rule are two contradictory 
things. How can the English people tolerate 
Home Rule for us? But I do not want you to 
decide this question for me just yet. To pass time 
over it is useless. When you have shown how we 
can have Home Rule, perhaps I shall understand 
your views. You have prejudiced me against 
you by discoursing on English help. I would, 
therefore, beseech you not to continue this subject. 

Editor : I have no desire to do so. That you 
are prejudiced against me is not a matter for rrruch 
anxiety. It is well that I should say unpleasant 
things at the commencement, it is my duty patiently 
to try to remove your prejudice. 

Reader : I like that last statement. It em- 
boldens me to say what I like. One thing still 
puzzles me. I do not understand how the Congress 
laid the foundation of Home Rule. 

Editor : Let us see. The Congress brought 
together Indians from different parts of India, and 
enthused us with the idea of Nationality. The 
Government used to look upon it with disfavour. 
The Congress has always insisted that the Nation 
should control revenue and expenditure. It has 
always desired self-government after the Canadian 



model. Whether we can get it or not, whether we 
desire it or not, and whetner there is not some- 
thing more desirable, are different questions. All I 
have to show is that the Congress gave us a fore- 
taste of Home Rule. To deprive it of the honour 
is not proper, and for us to do so would not only be 
ungrateful, but retard the fulfilment of our object. 
To treat the Congress as an institution inimical to 
our growth as a Nation would disable us from using 
that body. 

The Partition op Bengal 

Reader : Considering the matter as you put 
it, it seems proper to say that the foundation of 
Home Rule was laid by the Congress. But you 
will admit that it cannot be considered a real 
awakening. When and how did the awakening 
take place ? 

Editor : The seed is never seen. It works 
underneath the ground, is itself destroyed, and the 
tree which rises above the ground is alone seen, 
Such is the case with the Congress. Yet, what 
you call the real awakening took place after the 
Partition of Bengal. For this we have to be 
thankful to Lord Curzon. At the time of the 
Partition, the people of Bengal reasoned with 
Lord Curzon, but, in the pride of power, he 


disregarded all their prayers — he took it for grant- 
ed that Indians could only prattle, that they 
could never take any effective steps. He used in- 
sulting language, and, in the teeth of all. opposition, 
partitioned Bengal. That day may be considered to 
be the day of the partition of the British Empire. 
The shock that the British power received through 
the Partition has never been equalled by any other 
act. This does not mean that the other injustices 
done to India are less glaring than that done 
by the Partition. The salt-tax is not a small in- 
justice. We shall see many such things liter on. 
But the people were ready to resist the Partition. 
At that time, the feeling ran high. Many leading 
Bengalis were ready to lose their all. Thee knew 
their power ; hence the conflagration It is now 
well nigh unquenchable ; it is not necessary to 
quench it either. Partition will go, Bengal will be 
re-united, but the rift in the English barque will 
remain : it must daily widen, India awakened is 
not likely to fall asleep. Demand for abrogation of 
Partition is tantamount to demand for Home Rule. 
Leaders in Bengal know this, British officials realise 
it. That is why Partition still remains. As time 
passes, the Nation is being forged. Nations are not 
formed in a day ; the formation requires years. 

Reader ; What, in your opinion, are the re- 
sults of Partition ? 

Editor : Hitherto we have considered that for 


redress of grievances, we must approach the Throne 
and, if we get no redress, we must sit still, except 
that we may still petition. After the Partition, 
people saw that petitions must be backed up by 
force, and that they must be capable of suffering. 
This new spirit must be considered to be the chief 
result of Partition. That spirit was seen in 
the outspoken writings in the press. That which 
the people said tremblingly and in secret began 
to be said and to be written publicly. The Swadeshi 
movement was inaugurated. People, young and 
old, used to run away at the sight of an English 
face ; it now no longer awed them. They did not 
fear even a row, or being imprisoned. Some of the 
best sons of India are at present in banishment. 
This is something different from mere petitioning. 
Thus are the people moved. The spirit generated in 
Bengal has spread in the North to the Puujab, and 
in the South to Cape Comorin. 

Reader: Do you suggest any other striking 
result ? 

Editor : The Partition has not only made a 
rift in the English ship, but has made it in ours 
also. Great events always produce great results. 
Our leaders are divided into two parties : the 
Moderates and the Extremists. These may be 
considered as the slow party and the impatient 
party. Some call the Moderates the timid Party, 
and the Extremists the bold party. All interpret 


the two words according to their pre-conceptions. 
This much is certain — that there has arisen an 
enmity between the two. The one distrusts the 
other, and imputes motives. At the time of the 
Surat Congress, there was almost a fight. I think 
that this division is not a good thing for the 
country, bat I think also that such divisions will 
not last long. It all depends upon the leaders how 
long they will last. 

Discontent and Unrest 

Reader : Then you consider Partition to be a 
cause of the awakening ? Do you welcome the 
unrest which has resulted from it ? 

Editor : When a man rises from sleep, he 
twists his limbs and is restless. It takes some time 
before he is entirely awakened. Similarly, although 
the Partition has caused an awakening, the comatose 
has not yet disappeared. We are still twisting our 
limbs and still restless, and just as the state between 
sleep and awakening must be considered to be 
necessary, so may the present unrest in India be 
considered a necessary and, therefore, a proper 
state. The knowledge that there is unrest will, it 
is highly probable, enable us to outgrow it. Rising 
from sleep, we do not continue in a comatose state, 
but* according to our ability, sooner or later, we 


are completely restored to our senses. So shall we 
be free from the present unrest which no one likes. 

Reader : What is the other form of unrest ? 

Editor : Unrest is, in reality, discontent. The 
latter is only now described as unrest. During 
the Congress-period it was labelled discontent ; Mr. 
Hume alwajfnfiaid that the spread of discontent in 
India was i ry. This discontent is a very 

useful thing., . ong as a man is contented with 
his present lot, so long is it difficult to p<^r^ uade 
him to come out of it. Therefore it is that 
every reform must be preceded by discontent. 
We throw. away things we have only when we 
cease to like them. Such discontent has been 
produced among us after reading the great works 
of Indians and Englishmen. Discontent has 
led to unrest, and the latter has brought about 
many deaths, many imprisonments, many banish- 
ments. Such a state of things will still continue. 
It must be so. All these may be considered good 
signs, but they may also lead to bad results. 

What is Swaraj ? 

Reader : I have now learnt what the Congress 
has done to make India one nation, how the Parti- 
tion has caused an awakening, and how discontent 
and unrest have spread through the land. I would 


now like to know your views on Swaraj. I fear that 
our interpretation is not the same. 

Editor : It is quite possible that we do not 
attach the same meaning to the term. You and I 
and all Indians are impatient to obtain Swaraj, but 
we are certainly not decided as to what it is. To 
drive the English out of India is a t+ ght heard 
from many mouths, but it does nr 1 that many 

have properly considered why it l be so. I 

must'"a°k you a question. Do you think that it is 
necessary to drive away the English, if we get all 
we want ? 

Reader : I should ask of them only one thing 
that is : " Please leave our country." If after they 
have complied with this request, their withdrawal 
from India means that they are still in India, I 
should have no objection. Then we would under- 
stand that, in our language, the word " gone " is 
equivalent to "remained." 

Editor . Well then, let us suppose that the 
English have retired. What will you do then ? 

Reader : That question cannot be answered 
at this stage. The state after withdrawal will 
depend largely upon the manner of it. If, as you 
assume, they retire, it seems to me we shall still 
keep their constitution, and shall carry on the 
government. If they simply retire for the asking, 
we should have an army, etc. ready at hand. We 


should, therefore, have no difficulty in carrying on 
the government. 

Editor: You may think so: I do not. Bat 
I will not discuss the matter just now. I have to 
answer your question, and that I can do well by 
asking you several questions. Why do you want 
to drive away the English ? 

Reader: Because India has become im- 
poverished by their government. They take away 
our money from year to year. The most important 
posts are reserved for themselves. We are kept in 
a state of slavery. They behave insolently towards 
us, and disregard our feelings. 

Editor : If tbey do not take our money away, 
become gentle, and give us responsible posts, would 
you still consider their presence to be harmful ? 

Reader : That question is useless. It is 
similar to the question whether there is any harm 
in associating with a tiger, if he changes his nature. 
Such a question is sheer waste of time. When a 
tiger changes his nature, Englishmen will change 
theirs. This is not possible, and to believe it to be 
possible is contrary to human experience. 

Editor : Supposing we get self-government 
similar to what the Canadians and the South 
Africans have, will it be good enough ? 

Reader : That question also is useless. We 
may get it when we have the same powers ; we 
shall then hoist our own flag. As is Japan, so 


must India be. We must own our navy, our army, 
and we must have our own splendour, and tben 
will India's voice ring through the world. 

Editor : You have well drawn the picture. 
In effect it means this : that we want English rule 
without the Englishman. You want fche tiger's 
nature, but not the tiger; that is to say, you would 
make India English, and when it becomes English, 
it will be called not Hindustan but Englistan. This 
is not the Swaraj that I want. 

Reader : I have placed before you my idea of 
Swaraj as I think it should be. If the education 
we have received be of any use, if the works of 
Spencer, Mill and others be of any importance 
and if the Eagiish Parliament be « the mother 
of Parliaments, I certainly think that we should 
copy the English people and this to such an 
exten* that, just as they do not allow otheia 
to obtain a footing in their country, so we 
should not allow them or others to obtain it in ours. 
What they have done in their own country has 
not been done in any other country. It is, there- 
fore, proper for us to import their institutions 
But now I want to know your views. 

Editor: There is need for patience. My 
views will develop of themselves in the course of this 
discourse. It is as difficult for me to understand the 
true nature of Swaraj as it seems to you to be easy. 
I shall, therefore, for the time being, content 


myself with endeavouring to show that what you 
call Swaraj is not truly Swaraj. 

The Condition of England 
Eeader : Then from your statement, I deduce 
the Government of England is not desirable and 
not worth copying by us. 

Editor : Your deduction is justified. The 
condition of England at present is pitiable. I pray 
to God that India may never be in that plight. 
That which you consider to be the Mother of 
Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a prostitute. 
Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit toe case. 
That Parliament has not yet of its own accord 
done a single good thing, hence I have compared 
it to a sterile woman. The natural condition of that 
Parliament is such that, without outside pressure, 
it can do nothing. It is like a prostitute because it 
is under the control of ministers who change from 
time to time. To-day it is under Mr. Asquith, to- 
morrow it may be under Mr. Balfour. 

Eeader: You have said this sarcastically. 
The term " sterile woman " is not applicable. The 
Parliament, being elected by the people, must work 
under public pressure. This is its quality. 

Editor : You are mistaken. Let us examine it 
a little more closely. The best men are supposed 


to be elected by the people. The members serve 
without pay and, therefore, it must be assumed 
only for the public weal. The electors are con- 
sidered to be educated and, therefore, we should 
assume that they would not generally make mistakes 
in their choice. Such a Parliament should not need 
the spur of petitions or any other pressure. Its work 
should be so smooth that its effect would be more 
apparent day by day. But, as a matter of fact, it is 
generally acknowledged that the members are 
hyprocritical and selfish. Each thinks of his own 
little interest.. It is fear that is the guiding motive. 
What is done to-day may be undone to-morrow. It 
is not possible to recall a single instance in which the 
finality can be predicted for its work. When the 
greatest questions are debated its members have been 
seen to stretch themselves and to dose. Sometimes 
the members talk away until the listeners are dis- 
gusted. Carlyle has called it the " talking shop of 
the world." Members vote for their party without a 
thought. Their so-called discipline binds them to 
it. If any member, by way of exception, gives an 
independent vote, he is considered a renegade. If 
the money and the time wasted by the Parliament 
were entrusted to a few good men, the English na- 
tion would be occupying to-day a much higher 
platform. The Parliament is simply a costly toy 
of the nation. These views are, by no means, 
peculiar to me. Some great English thinkers have 


expressed them. One of the members of the Par- 
liament recently said that a true Christian could not 
become a member of it. Another said that it was a 
baby. And, if it has remained a baby after an exis- 
tence of seven hundred years, when will it outgrow 
its babyhood ? 

Header : You have set me thinking ; you do 
not expect me to accept at once all you say. You 
give me entirely novel views. I shall have to 
digest them, Will you now explain the epithet 

Editor : That you cannot accept my views at 
once is only right. If you will read the literature 
on this subject, you will have some idea of it. The 
Parliament is without a real master. Under the 
Prime Minister, its movement is not steady, bat it 
is buffeted about like a prostitute. The Prime 
Minister is more concerned about his power than 
about the welfare of the Parliament. His energy 
is concentrated upon securing the success of his 
party. His care is not always that the Parliament 
shall do right. Prime Ministers are known to have 
made the Parliament do things merely for party 
advantage. All this is worth thinking over. 

Reader : Then you are really attacking the 
very men whom we have hitherto considered to be 
patriotic and honest ? 

Editor : Yes, that is true ; I can have nothing 
against Prime Ministers, but what I have seen leads 


me to think that they cannot be considered really 
patriotic. If they are to be considered honest be- 
cause they do not take what is generally known as 
bribery, let them be so considered, but they ace 
open to subtler influences. In order to gain their 
ends, they certainly bribe people with honours. I 
do not hesitate to say that they have neither real 
honesty nor a living conscience. 

Header : As you express these views about 
the Parliament, I would like to hear you on the 
English people, so that I may have your views of 
their Government. 

Editor : To the English voters their news- 
paper is their Bible. They take cue from their 
newspapers, which latter are often dishonest. The 
same fact is differently interpreted by different 
newspapers, according to the party in whose inter- 
ests they are edited. One newspaper would con- 
sider a great Englishman to be a paragon of honesty, 
another would consider him dishonest. What must 
be the condition of the people whose newspapers 
are of this type ? 

Reader : You shall describe it. 

Editor : These people change their views fre- 
quently. It is said that they change them every 
seven years. These views swing like the pendulum 
of a clock and are never steadfast. The people 
would follow a powerful orator or a man who gives 
them parties, receptions, etc, As are the people, sc 


is their Parliament. They have certainly one quality 
very strongly developed. They will never allow 
their country to be lost. If any person were to cast 
an evil eye on it, they would pluck out his eyes. 
Bui that does not mean that the nation possesses 
every other virtue or that it should be imitated. If 
India copies England, it is my firm conviction that 
she will be ruined. 

Eeader : To what do you ascribe this state of 
England ? 

Editor : It is not due to any peculiar fault of 
the English people, but the condition is due to mo- 
dern civilization. It is a civilization only in name. 
Under it the nations of Europe are becoming de- 
graded and ruined day by day. 

Header : Now you will have to explain what 
you mean by civilization. 

Editor : It is not a question of what mean. 
Several English writers refuse to call that, civiliza- 
tion which passes under that name. Many books 
have been written upon that subject. Societies have 
been formed to cure the nation of the evils of civili- 
zation. A great English writer has written a work 
called ''Civilization : Its Cause and Cure." Therein 
he has called it a disease, 


Reader : Why do we not know this generally ? 

Editor : The answer is very simple. We rarely 
find people arguing against themselves. Those who 
are intoxicated by modern civilisation are not likely 
to write against it. Their care will be to find out 
facts and arguments in support of it, and this they 
do unconsciously, believing it to be true. A man, 
whilst he is dreaming, believes in his dream ; he is 
undeceived only when he is awakened from his 
sleep. A man labouring under the bane of civiliza- 
tion is like a dreaming man. What we usually read 
are the work of defenders of modern civilization, 
which undoubtedly claims among its votaries very 
brilliant and even some very good men. Tiieir 
writings hypnotise us. And so, one by one, we are 
drawn into the vortex. 

Readek: This seems to be very plausible. 
Now will you tell me something of what you have 
read and thought of this civilization. 

Editor : Let us first consider what state of 
things is described by the word " civilization. " Its 
true test lies in the fact that people living in it make 
bodily welfare the object of life. We will take some 
examples. The people of Europe to-day live in 
better-built houses than they did a hundred years 
ago. This is considered an embhm of civiliza- 
tion, and this is also a matter to promote bodily 
happiness. Formerly, they wore skins, and 
used as their weapons spears. Now, they wear 


long trousers, and for embellishing their bodies 
they wear a variety of clothing, and, insteai of 
spears, they carry with them revolvers containing 
five or more chambers If people of a certain 
country, who have hitherto not been in the habit 
of wearing much clothing, boots, etc., adopt 
European clothing, they are supposed to have 
become civilised out of savagery. Formerly, in 
Europe, people ploughed their lands mainly by 
manual labour. Now, one man can plough* a vast 
tract by means of steam-engines, and can" thus 
amass great wealth. This is called a sign of civili- 
zation. Formerly, the fewest men wrote books, that 
were most valuable. Now, anybody writes and 
prints anything he likes and poisons people's minds. 
Formerly, men travelled in waggons ; now they fly 
through the air, in trains at the rate of four hun- 
dred and more miles per day. This is considered the 
height of civilization. It has been stated that, as 
men progress, they shall be able to travel in airships 
and reach any part of the world in a few hours. Men 
will not need the use of their hands and feet. They 
will press a button, and they will have their cloth- 
ing by their side. They will press another button, 
and they will have their newspaper. A third, and 
a motor-car will be in waiting for them. They will 
have a variety of delicately dished up food. Every- 
thing will be done by machinery. Formerly, when 
people wanted to fight with one another, they 


measured between them their bodily strength ; now 
it is possible to take away thousands of lives by 
one man working behind a gun from a hill. This 
is civilization. Formerly, men worked in the open 
air only so much as they liked. Now, thousands 
of workmen meet together and for the sake of 
maintenance work in factories or mines. Their 
condition is worse than that of beasts. They are 
obliged^ to work, at the risk of their lives, at most 
dangerous occupations, for the sake of millionaires. 
Formerly, men were made slaves under pnysical 
co mpulsion, now they are enslaved by temptation 
of money and of the luxuries that money can buy. 
There are now diseases of which people never 
dreamt before, and an army of doctors is 
engaged in finding out their cures, and so hos- 
pitals have increased. This is a test of civiliza- 
tion. Formerly, special messengers were required 
and much expense was incurred in order to send 
letters;: to-day, anyone can abuse his fellow by 
means of a letter for one penny. True, at the same 
cost, one can seud one's thanks also. Formerly, 
people had two or three meals consisting of home- 
made bread and vegetables; now, they require 
something to eat every two hours, so that they 
have hardly leisure for anything else. What more 
need I say ? All this you can ascertain from several 
authoritative books. These are all true tests of 
civilization. And, if auy one speaks to the contrary, 


know that he is ignorant. This civilization takes- 
note neither of morality nor of religion. Its votaries 
calmly state that their business is not to teach reli- 
gion. Some even consider it to be a superstitious 
growth. Others put on the cloak of religion, and 
prate about morality. But, after twenty years' 
experience, I have come to the conclusion that 
immorality is often taught in the name of morality. 
Even a child can understand that in all I have 
described above there can be no inducement to 
morality. Civilization seeks to increase bodily 
comforts, and it fails miserably even in doing so. 

This civilization is irreligion, and it has taken 
such a hold on the people in Europe that those who 
are in it appear to be half mad. They lack real 
physical strength or courage. They keep up their 
energy by intoxication. They can hardly be happy 
in solitude. Women, who should be the queens 
of households, wander in the streets, or they slave 
away in factories. For the sake of a pittance, half 
a million women in England alone are labouring 
under trying circumstances in factories or similar 
institutions. This awful fact is one of the causes 
of the daily growing suffragette movement. 

This civilization is such that one has only to 
be patient and it will be self-destroyed. According 
to the teaching cf Mahomed this would be consider- 
ed a Satanic civilization. Hinduism calls it the 
Black Age. I cannot give you an adequats concep- 


tion of it. It is eating into the vitals of the 
English nation. It must be shunned. Parliament 
are really emblems of slavery. If you will sufficiently 
think over this, you will entertain the same 
opinion, and cease to blame the English. They 
rather deserve our sympathy. They are a shrewd 
nation and I therefore believe that they will cast 
off the evil. They are enterprising and industrious 
and their mode of thought is not inherently 
immoral. Neither are they bad at heart. I, 
therefore, respect them. - Civilization is not an 
incurable disease, but it should never be forgotten 
that the English people are at present afflicted 
by it. 

Why was India Lost ? 

Reader : You have said much about civiliza- 
^ on — enough to make me ponder over it. I do not 
now know what 1 should adopt and what I should 
avoid from the nations of Europe, but one question 
comes to my lips immediately. If civilization is 
a disease, and if it has attacked England why has 
she been abie to take India, and why is she able to 
retain it? 

Editor : Your question is not very difficult 
to answer, and we shall presently be able to 
examine the true nature of Swaraj ; for I am aware 
that I have still to answer that question. I m\\, 


however, take up your previous question. The- 
English have not taken India ; we have given it to 
them. They are not in India because of their 
strength, hut because we keep them. Let us now 
see whether these propositions can be sustained. 
They came to our country originally for purposes of 
trade. Recall the Company :Bahadur. Who made 
it Bahadur ? They had not the slightest intention 
at the time of establishing a kingdom. Who assist- 
ed the Company's officers ? Who was tempted at 
the sight of their silver? W r ho bought their goods ? 
History testifies that we did all this. In order to 
become rich all at once, we welcomed the 
Company's officers with open arms. We assisted 
them. If I am in the habit of drinking Bhang 
and a seller thereof sells it to me, am I to blame 
him or myself ? By blaming the seller shall I be 
able to avoid the habit ? And, if a particular retailer 
is driven away, will not another take his place ? 
A true servant of India will have to go to the root 
of the matter. If an excess of food has caused me 
indigestion, I will certainly not avoid it by blaming 
water. He is a true physician who probes the 
cause of disease and, if you pose as a physician for 
the disease of India, you will have to find out its 
true cause. 

Reader : You are right. Now, I think you 
will not have to argue much with me to drive your 
conclusions home. I am impatient to know your 


further views, We are now on a most interesting 
topic* I shall, therefore, endeavour to follow your 
thought, and stop you when I am in doubt. 

Editor: I am afraid that, in spite of your 
enthusiasm, as we proceed further we shall have 
differences of opinion. Nevertheless, I shall argue 
only when you will stop me. We have already 
seen that the English merchants were able to get a 
footing in India because we encouraged them. 
When our princes fought among themselves, they 
sought the assistance of Company Bahadur. That 
corporation was versed alike in commerce and war. 
It was unhampered by questions of morality. Its 
object was to increase its commerce, and to make 
• money. It accepted our assistance, and increased 
the number of its warehouses. To protect the latter 
it employed an army which was utilised by us also. 
Is it not then useless to blame the English for what 
we did at that time ? The Hindus and the Maho- 
medans were at daggers drawn. This, too, gave 
the Company its opportunity ; and thus we created 
the circumstances that gave the Company its con- 
trol over India. Hence it is truer to say that we 
gave India to the English than that India was lost, 

Keader : Will you now tell me how they are 
able to retain India? 

Editor : The causes that gave them India 
enable them to retain it. Some Englishmen state 
that they took, and they hold, India by the sword. 


Both these statements are wrong, The sword Ss> 
entirely useless for holding India. We alone keep 
them. Napoleon is said to have described 
the English as a nation of shop-keepers. It is 
a fitting description. They hold whatever domi- 
nions they have for the sake of their commerce. 
Their army and their navy are intended to pro- 
tectit. When the Transvaal offered no such 
attractions, the late Mr. Gladstone discovered that 
it was not right for the English to hold it. When 
it became a paying proposition, resistance led to war. 
Mr. Chamberlain soon discovered that England 
enjoyed a suzerainty over the Transvaal. \t is 
related that some one asked the late President 
Kruger whether there was gold in the moon. He 
replied that it was highly unlikely, because, if there 
were, the English would have annexed it. Many 
problems can be solved by remembering that money 
is their God. Then it follows that we keep the 
English in India for our base self-interest. We 
like their commerce, they please us by their subtle 
methods, and get what they want from us. To 
blame them for this is to perpetuate their power. 
We further strengthen their hold by quarrelling 
amongst ourselves If ycu accept the above state- 
ments, it is proved that the English entered India 
for the purposes of trade. , They remain in it for 
the same purpose, and we help them to do so Their 
arms and ammunition are perfectly useless. In, 


this connection, I remind you that it is the British 
flag which is waving in Japan, and not the Japa- 
nese. The English have a treaty with Japan for 
the sake of their commerce, and you will see that, 
if they can manage it, their commerce will greatly 
expand in that country. They wish to convert the 
whole world into a vast market for their goods. 
That they cannot do so is true, but the blame will 
not be theirs. They will leave no stone unturned 
to reach the goal. 


The Condition of India 
Reader : I now understand why the English 
hold India. I should like to know your views about 
the condition of our country. 

Editor : It is a sad condition. In thinking of 
it, my eyes water and my throat get parched. I 
have grave doubts whether I shall be able sufficiently 
to explain what is in my heart. It is my deliberate 
opinion that India is being ground down not under 
the English heel but under that of modern civili- 
zation. It is groaning under the monster's terrible 
weight. There is yet time to escape it, but every day 
makes it more and more difficult. Religion is dear 
to me, and my first complaint is that India is be- 
coming irreligious- Here I am not thinking of the 
Hindu and Mahomedan or the Zoroastrian religion, 


but of the religion which underlies all religions. 
We are turning away from God. 
Header: How so? 

Editor : There is a charge laid against us that 
we are a lazy people, and that the Europeans are 
industrious and enterprising. We have accepted 
the charge and we, therefore, wish to change our 
condition. Hinduism, Islamism, Zoroastrianism, 
Christianity and all other religions teach that we 
should remain passive about worldly pursuits and 
active about godly pursuits, that we should set a 
limit to our worldly ambition, and that our religious 
ambition should be illimitable. Our activity should 
be directed into the latter channel. 

Header : You seem to be encouraging religious 
charlatanism. Many a cheat has by talking in a 
similar strain led the people astray. 

Editor : You are bringing an unlawful charge 
against religion. Humbug there undoubtedly is 
about all religions. Where there is light, there is 
also shadow. I am prepared to maintain that 
humbugs in worldly matters are far worse than the 
humbugs in religion. The humbug of civilization 
that I endeavour to show to you is not to be found 
in religion. 

Header : How can you say that? In the narns 
of religion Hindus and Mahomedans fought ag'ainst 
one another. For the same cause Christians fought 
Christians. Thousands of innocent men have been 


murdered, thousands have been burned and tortured 
in its name. Surely, this is much worse than any 

Editor : I certainly submit that the above 
hardships are far more bearable than those of 
civilization. Everybody understands that the 
cruelties you have named are not part of religion, 
although they have been practised in its name : 
therefore there is no aftermath to these cruelties. 
They will always happen so long as there are 
to be found ignorant and credulous people. But 
there is no end to the victims destroyed in the fire 
of civilization. Its deadly effect is that people came 
under its scorching flames believing it to be all 
good. They become utterly irreligious and, in 
reality, derive little advantage from the world. 
Civilization is like a mouse gnawing, while it is 
soothing us. When its full effect is realised,, we 
will see that religious superstition is harmless 
compared to rhat of modern civilization. I am not 
pleading for a continuance of religious superstitions. 
We will certainly fight them tooth and nail, but we 
can never do so by disregarding religion. We can 
only do so by appreciating and conserving the 

Reader : Then you will contend that the Pax 
Britannica is a useless encumbrance ? 

Editob : You may see peace if you like ; I see 


Eeader : You make light of the terror that 
Thugs, the Pindaris, the Bhils were to the country. 

Editor : If you will give the matter some 
thought, you will see that the terror was by no 
means such a mighty thing. If it had been a very 
substantial thing, the other people would have died 
away before the English advent. Moreover, the 
present peace is only nominal, for by it we. have 
become emasculated and cowardly. We are not to 
assume that the English have changed the nature 
of the Pindaris and the Bhils, It is, therefore, 
better to suffer the Pindari peril than that some one 
else should protect us from it, and thus render us 
effeminate. I should prefer to be killed by the 
arrow of a Bhil than to seek unmanly protection. 
India without such protection was an India full of 
valour. Macaulay betrayed gross ignorance when 
he libelled Indians as being practically cowards. 
They never merited the charge. Cowards living in 
a country inhabited by hardy mountaineers, infested 
by wolves and tigers must surely find an early 
grave. Have'you ever visited our fields ? I assure 
you that our agriculturists sleep fearlessly on their 
farms even to-day, and the English, you and I 
would hesitate to sleep where they sleep. Strength 
lies in absence of fear, not in the quantity^of flesli 
and muscle we may h~ave"^n~our"~ : bod1esrTSroreover 5 
I must rem inTyb1T~w¥o~~Hesire Home Bule that, 
after all, the Bhiis, the Pindaris, the Assamese and 


the Thugs are our own countrymen. To conquer 
them is your and my work. So long as we fear 
our own brethren, we are unfit to reach the goal. 


The Condition op India {Continued) 
Reader : You have deprived me of the consola- 
tion I used to have regarding peace in India. 

Editor : I have merely given you my opinion 
on the religious aspect, but when I give you my 
views as to the poverty of India you will perhaps 
begin to dislike me, because what you and I have 
hitherto considered beneficial for India no longer 
appears to me to be so. 

Reader : What may that be ? 
Editor : Railways, lawyers and doctors have 
impoverished the country, so much so that, if we dc 
not wake up in time, we shall be ruined. 

Reader : I do now indeed fear that we are 
not likely to agree at all. You are attacking the 
very institutions which we have hitherto considered 
to be good. 

Editor : It is necessary to exercise patience. 

The true inwardness of the evils of civilization you 

will understand with difficulty. D octors assure us 

that a consumptive clings to life even when he is 

about to die. Consumption does not produce ap- 



parent hurt — it even produces a seductive colour 
about a patient's face, so as to induce the belief that 
all is well. Civilization is such a disease, and we 
have to be very wary. 

Readek : Very well, then, I shall hear you on 
the railways. 

Editor : It must be manifest to you that, but 
for the railways, the English could not have such a 
hold on India as they have. The railways, too, have 
spread the bubonic plague. Without them, masses 
could not move from place to place. They are the 
carriers of plague germs. Formerly we had natural 
segregation. Railways have also increased the fre- 
quency of famines, because, owing to facility of 
means of locomotion, people sell out their grain, 
and it is sent to the dearest markets, People become 
careless, and so the pressure of famine increases. 
They accentuate the evil nature of man. Bad men 
fulfil their evil designs with greater rapidity. Toe 
holy places of India have become unholy. Formerly 
people went to these places with very great difficulty. 
Generally, therefore, only the real devotees visited 
such places. Now-a-days, rogues visit them in 
order to practise their roguery. 

Reader : You have given an one-sided account. 
Good men can visit these places as well as bad 
men. Why do they not take the fullest advantage 
of the railways? 


Editor : Good travels at a snail's pace — it can, 
therefore, have little to do with the railways. 
Those who want to do good are not selfish, they 
are not in a hurry, they know that to impregnate 
people with good requires a long time. But evil 
has wings. To build a house takes time. Its 
destruction takes none. So the railways can be- 
come a distributing agency for the evil one only. 
It may be a debatable matter whether railways 
spread famines, but it is beyond dispute that they 
propagate evil. 

Reader : Be that as it may, all the disadvan- 
tages of railways are more than counter-balanced by 
the fact that it is due to them that we see in India 
the new spirit of nationalism. 

Editor: I hold this to be a mistake. The 
English have taught us that we were not one 
nation before, and that it will require centuries 
before we become one nation. This is without 
foundation. We were one nation before they came 
to India. One thought inspired us. Our mode of 
life was the same. It was because, we were one 
nation that they were able to establish one kingdom. 
Subsequently they divided us. 

Reader : This requires an explanation. 

Editor : I do not wish to suggest that because 
we were one nation we had no differences, but it is 
submitted that our leading men travelled through- 
out India, either on foot or in bullock-carts. They 


learned one another's languages, and there was 
no aloofness between them. What do you think 
could have been the intention of those far-seeing 
ancestors of ours who established Shethubindu- 
Karoeshwar in the South, Juggernaut in the 
South-East and Hardwar in the North as places 
of pilgrimage ? You will admit they were 
no fools. They knew that worship of God could 
have been performed just as well at home. They 
taught us that those whose hearts were aglow with 
righteousness had the Ganges in their own homes. 
But they saw that India was one undivided land so 
made by nature. They, therefore, argued that it 
must be one nation. Arguing thus, they established 
holy places in various parts of India, and fired the 
people with an idea of nationality in a manner 
unknown in other parts of the world. Any two 
Indians are one as no two Englishmen are. Only 
you and I and others who consider ourselves civilised 
and superior person imagine that we are many 
nations. It was after the advent of railways that 
we began to believe in distinctions, and you are at 
liberty now to say that it is through the railways 
that we are beginning to abolish those distinctions. 
An opium-eater may argue the advantage of opium- 
eatmg from the fact that he began to understand 
the evil of the opium habit after having eaten it. I 
would ask you to consider well what I have said on 
the railways. m 


Reader : I will gladly do so, but one question 
occurs to me even now. You have described to me 
the India of the pre-Mahomedan period, but now 
we have Mahomedans, Parsees and Christians. 
How can they be one nation? Hindus and Maho- 
medans are old enemies. Our very proverbs prove 
it. Mahomedans turn to the West for worship 
whilst Hindus turn to the East. The former look 
down on the Hindus as idolators. The Hindus 
worship the cow, the Mahomedans kill her. The 
Hindus believe in the doctrine o'i non-killing, the 
Mahomedans do not. We thus meet with differ- 
ences at every step. How can India, be one nation ? 


The Condition of India (Continued) 
The Hindus and the Mahomedans 
Editor : Your last question is a serious one ; 
and yet, on careful consideration, it will be found 
to be easy of solution. The question arises because 
of the presence of the railways, of the lawyers and 
of the doctors. We shall presently examine the last 
two. We have already considered the railways. I 
should, however, iike to add that man is so made by 
nature as to require him to restrict his movements 
as far as his hands and feet will take him. If we did 
not rush about from place to place by means of 
railways and such other maddening .conveniences, 
much of the confusion that arises would be obviated. 


Our difficulties are of our own creation. God set a 
limit to a man's locomotive ambition in the 
construction of his body. Man immediately pro- 
ceeded to discover means of overriding the limit. 
G-od gifted man with intellect that he might know 
his Maker. Man abused it, so that he might for- 
get his Maker. I am so constructed that I can 
only serve my immediate neighbours, but in my 
conceit, I pretend to have discovered that I must 
with my body serve every individual in the 
Universe. In thus attempting the impossible, 
man comes in contact with different natures, 
different religions and is utterly confounded. 
According to this reasoning, it must be apparent to 
you that railways are a most dangerous institution. 
Man has there through gone further away from his 

Reader: But I am impatient to hear your 
answer to my question. Has the introduction of 
Mahomedanism not unmade the nation ? 

Editor : India cannot cease to be one nation 
because people belonging to different religions live 
in it. The introduction of foreigners does not 
necessarily destroy the nation, they merge in it. A 
country is one nation only when such a condition 
obtains in it That country must have a faculty for 
assimilation. India has ever been such a country. 
In reality, thare are as many religions as there are 
individuals, but those who are conscious of the 


spirit of nationality do not interfere with one 
another's religion. If they do, they are not fit to 
be considered a nation. If the Hindus believe that 
India should be peopled only by Hindus, they are 
living in dreamland. The Hindus, the Mahomedans, 
the Parsees and the Christians who have made 
India their country are fellow-countrymen, and they 
will have to live in unity if only for their own in- 
terest. In no part of the ^orld are one nationality 
and one religion synonymous terms ; nor has it ever 
been so in India. 

Reader : But what about the inborn enmity 
between Hindus and Mahomedans ? 

Editor : That phrase has been invented by our 
mutual enemy. When the Hindus and Mahomedans 
fought against one another, they certainly spoke in 
that strain. They have long since ceased to fight. 
How, then, can there be any inborn enmity ? Pray 
remember this too, that we did not cease to fight 
only after British occupation. The Hindus flourished 
under Moslem sovereigns and Moslems under the 
Hindu. Each party recognised that mutual fight- 
ing was suicidal, and that neither party would 
abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties, 
therefore, decided to live in peace. With the English 
advent the quarrels re-commenced. ■ 

The proverbs you have quoted were coined 
when both were fightmg ; to quote them now is 
obviously harmful, Should we not remember that 



many Hindus and Mahomedans own the same 
ancestors, and the same blood runs through their 
veins ? Do people become enemies because they 
change their religion ? Is the God of the Mahoniedan 
different from the G-od of the Hindu ? Religions are 
different roads converging to the-same point. What 
does it matter that we take different roads, so long 
as we reach the same goal ? Wherein is the cause 
for quarrelling ? 

Moreover, there are deadly proverbs as between 
the followers of Shiva and those of Vishnu, yet 
nobody suggests that these two do not belong to the 
same nation. It is said that the Vedic religion is 
different from Jainism, but the followers of the 
respective faiths are not different nations. The fact 
is that we have become enslaved, and, therefore, 
quarrel and like to have our quarrels decided by a 
third party. There are Hindu iconoclasts as there 
are Mahomedan. The more we advance in true 
knowledge, the better we shall understand that we 
need not be at war with those whose religion we 
may not follow. 

Reader : Now I would like to know your views 
about cow protection. 

Editor : I myself respect the cow, that is I 
look upon her with affectionate reverence. The cow 
is the protector of India, because, it being an 
agricultural country, is dependant on the cow's 


progeny. She is a most useful animal in hundreds 
of ways. Our Mahomedan brethren will admit this. 

But, just as I respect the cow so do I respect 
my fellow-men. A man is just as useful as a cow, 
no matter whether he be a Mahomedan or a Hindu. 
Am T, then, to fight with., or kill a Mahomedan in 
order to save a cow ? In doing so, I would become 
an enemy as well of the cow as of the Mahomedan. 
Therefore, the only method I know of protecting 
the cow is that I should approach my Mahomedan 
brother and urge him for the sake of the country to 
join me in protecting her. If he would not listen 
to me, I should let the cow go for the simple reason 
that the matter is beyond my ability. If I were 
oyer full of pity for the cow, I should sacrifice my 
lrfejio^sj^jier^but not, take my brother's. This, I 
hold, js_the_±awpf our religion. 

When men become obstinate, it is a difficult 
thing. If I pull one way, my Moslem brother will 
pull another. If I put on a superior air, he will 
return the compliment. If I bow to him gently, he 
will do it much more so, and if he does not, I shall 
}M>t be considered to have done wrong in having 
bowed. Whm the Hindus became insistent, the 
killing of cows increased. In my opinion, cow 
protection societies may be considered cow-killing 
societies. It is a disgrace to us that we should 
need such societies. When we forgot how to 
protect cows, I suppose we needed such souiaties. 


What am I to do when a blood-brother is on 
the point of killing a cow ? Am I to kill biro, or to 
fall down at his feet and implore him? If you admit* 
that I should adopt the latter course, I must do the 
same to my Moslem brother. 

Who protects the cow from destruction by 
Hindus when they cruelly ill-treat her ? Whoever 
^laiasons with the Hindus when they mercilessly 
belabour the progeny of the cow with their sticks ? 
But this has not prevented us from remaining one 

Lastly, if it be true that the Hindus believe in 
the doctrine of non-killing and the Mabomedans 
do not, what, I pray, is the duty of tbe 
former ? It is not written that a follower of the 
religion of Ahimsa (non-killing) may kill a fellow- 
man. For him the way is straight. In order to save 
one being, he may not kill another. He can only 
plead — therein lies his sole duty. 

But does every Hindu believe in Ahimsa? 
Going to the root of the matter, not one man really. / 
practises such a religion, because we do destroy life- 
We are said to follow that religion because we want 
to obtain freedom from liability to kill any kind of 
life. Generally speaking, we may observe that many 
Hindus partake of meat and 'are not, therefore, 
followers of Ahimsa. It is, therefore, prepos- 
terous to suggest that the two cannot live 


together amicably because the Hindus believe in 
Ahimsa and the'Mahomedans do not. 

These thoughts are put into our minds by 
selfish and false religious teachers. The English put 
the finishing touch. They have a habit of writing 
history ; they pretend to study the manners and 
customs of all peoples. God has given us a limited 
mental tapacity, but they usurp the function of the 
God-head and indulge in novel experiments. They 
write about their own researches in most laudatory 
terms and hypnotise us into believing them. We 
in our ignorance, then fall at their feet. 

Those who do no; wish to misunderstand 
things may read up the Koran, and will find there- 
in hundreds of passages acceptable to the Hindus ; 
and the Bhagavad-Gifca contains passages to which 
not a Mahoraedan can take exception. Am I to 
dislik- a Mahomedan because there are passages in 
the Koran I do not understand or like ? It takes 
two to make a quarrel. If I do not want to quarrel 
with a Mahomedan, the latter will be powerless to 
foist a quarrel on me, and, similarly, I should be 
powerless if a Mahomedan refuses his assistance to 
quarrel with me. An arm striking the air will . 
become disjointed. If every one will try to under- 
stand the core of his own religion and adhere to it, 
and will not allow false teachers to dictate to him, 
there will be no room left for quarrelling. 


Reader : But will the English aver allow the 
two bodies to join hands ? 

Editor : This question arises out of your 
timidity. It betrays our shallowness. If two 
brothers want to live in peace is it possible for a 
third party ,to separate them ? If they were to 
listen to evil counsels, we would consider them 
to be foolish. Similarly, we Hindus and Maho- 
metans would have to blame our folly rather 
than the English, if we allowed them to put us 
asunder. A claypot would break through impact ; 
if not with one stone, then with another. The way 
to save the pot is not to keep it away from the 
danger point, but to bake it so that no stone would 
break it, We have then to make our hearts of 
perfectly baked clay. Then we shall be steeled 
against all danger. This can be easily done by the 
Hindus. They are superior in numbers, they 
pret-nd that they are more educated, they are, 
therefore, better able to shield themselves from 
attack on their amicable relations with the Maho- 


There is mutual distrust between the two 

communities. The Mahomedans, therefore, ask 

for certain concessions from Lord Morley. Why 

should the Hindus oppose this ? If the Hindus 

desisted, the English would notice it, the 

Mahomedans would gradually begin to trust the 

Hindus, and brotherliness would be the outcome- 


We should be ashamed to take our quarrels to the 
English. Everyone can find out for himself that 
the Hindus can lose nothing by desisting. That 
man who has inspired confidence in another has 
never lost anything in this world. 

I do not suggest that the Hindus and the 
Mahomedans will never fight. Two brothers living 
together often do so. We shall sometimes have 
our heads broken. Such a thing ought not to be 
necessary, but all men are not equiminded. When 
people are in a rage, they do many foolish things. 
These we have to put up with. But, when we do 
quarrel, we certainly do not want to enagage counsel 
and to resort to English or any law-courts. Two men 
fight ; both have their heads broken, or one only. 
How shall a third party distribute justice amongst 
them ? Those who fight may expect to be injured. 


The Condition op India {Continued) 


Reader : You tell me that, when two men 

quarrel, they should not go to a law-court. This 

is astonishing. 

Editor : Whether you call it astonishing., or 
not, it is the truth. And your question introduces 
us to the lawyers and the doctors. My firm opinion 
is that the lawyers have enslaved India and they 


have accentuated the Hindu-Mahomedan dissen- 
sions, and have confirmed English authority. 

Reader : It is easy enough to hring these 
charges, hut it will he difficult for you to prove 
them. But for the Lawyers, who would have shown 
us the road to independence? Who would have oro- 
tected the poor ? Who would have secured justice ? 
For instance, the late Mr. Manomohan Grhose de- 
fended many a poor man free* of charge. The 
Congress, which you have praised so much, is depen- 
dent for its existence and activity upon the work of 
the lawyers. To denounce such an estimahle class 
of men is to spell justice injustice, and you are abus- 
ing the liberty of the press by decrying lawyers. 

Editor: At one time I used to think exacffly 
like you. I have no desire to convince you that 
they have never done a single good thing. I honour 
Mr. Ghose's memory. It is quite true that he 
helped the poor. That the Congress.^ owes the 
lawyers something is believable. Lawyers are also 
men, and there is something good in every man. 
Whenever instances of lawyers having done go.^d 
can be brought forward, it will be found that the 
good is due to them as men rather than as lawyers. 
All I am concerned with is to show you that the 
profession teaches immorality; it is exposed to 
temptations from which few are saved. 

The Hindus and the Mahomedans have quar- 
relled. An ordinary man will ask them to forget 


all about it, he will tell them that both must be 
more or less at fault and will advise them no Lor. 
to quarrei They go to lawyers. The latter's duty 
is to side with their clients, and to find out w 
and arguments in favour of the clients to which 
they (the clients) are often strangers. If they do not 
do so, they will be considered to nave degraded their 
profession. Trie lawyers, therefore, will, as a - 
advance quarrels, instead of repressing them. 
Moreover, men take up ttaJ; profession, not in order 
to help others out of thou miseries, bat 
enrich themselves. It is one of the avenues 
becoming wealthy and their interest exists in 
multiplying disputes, it is within my ko 
ledge that they are grid when mm have .: 
Petty pleaders actually manufacture fchem, T 
touts, like so ma lvjl ° : 

pooi Lawyers ace men who have 

ple,i i ttder to indulge in luxui 
take up Thisisal 

Any other argument is a mete pretension. D 

>vered that I 
honourable profession. They frame laws 
frame their own praises. They de 
they will charge, "and they put : i a - m i 
poor people almost consider them to be heaven- borp. 

lo : f want more fees than ciji 
labourers? Why are their requirements great 
:n : -e they more profitable to the co" 


than the laboure-s? Are those who do good enti* 
tied to greater payment ? And, if they have done 
anything for the country for the sake of money, 
how shall it be counted as good ? 

Those who know anything of the Hindu- 
Mahomedan quarrels know that they have been 
often due to the intervention of lawyers," Some 
families have been ruined through them ; they 
have made brothers enemies. Principalities, 
having come under lawyer's power, have become 
loaded with debt. Many have been robbed of their 
all. Such instances can be multiplied. 

But the greatest injury they have done to the 
country is that they have tightened the English grip. 
Do you think that it would be possible for the 
English to carry on their government without 
law-courts? It is wrong to consider that courts are 
established for the benefit of the people. Those 
who want to perpetuate their power do so through 
the courts. If people were to settle their own 
quarrels, a third party would not be able to exer- 
cise any authority over them. Truly, men were 
less unmanly when they settled their disputes either 
by fighting or by asking their relatives to decide 
upon them. They became more unmanly and 
cowardly when they resorted to the courts of law. 
It was certainly a sign of savagery when they 
settled their disputes by fighting. Is it any the 
less so if I ask a third party to decide between 


vou aud uie ? Surely, the decision of -a third party 
is not always right. The parties alone know who is 
right. We, in our simplicity and ignorance, imagine 
that a stranger, by taking our money, gives us 

The chief thing, however, to be remembered 
is that, without lawyers, courts could not have 
been established or conducted, and without the 
latter the English could not rule. Supposing that 
there were only English Judges, English Pleaders 
and English Police, they could only rule over the 
English The English could not do without Indian 
Judges and Indian pleaders. How the pleaders were 
made in the first instance and how they were 
favoured you should understand well. Then you 
will have the same abhorrence for the profession 
that I have. If pleaders were to abandon their 
profession, and consider it just as degrading as 
prostitution, English rule would break up in a day. 
They huve been instrumental in having the charge 
laid against us that we love quarrels and courts, as 
fish love water. What I have said with reference 
to the pleaders necessarily applies to the judges ; 
they are first cousins, and the one gives strength to 
the other. 



The Condition op India {Continued) 

Reader : I now understand the lawyers ; 
the good they may have done is accidental. I feel 
that r,he profession is certainly hateful. You, how- 
ever, drag in these doctors also, how is that ? 

Editor : The views I submit to you are those 
I have adopted. They are not original. Western 
writers have used stronger terms regarding both 
lawyers and doctors. One writer has likened the 
whole modern system to the Upas tree. Its bran- 
ches are represented by parasitical professions, 
including those of law and medicine, and over the 
trunk has been raise \ the axe of true religion. 
Immorality is the root of the tree. So you will see 
that the views do not come right oat of my mind, 
bat they represent the combined experiences of 
many. I was afc one time a great lover of the 
medical profession. It- was my intention to become 
a doctor* for the sake of the country. I no longer 
hold' that opinion, I now understand why the 
medicine men (the vaids) among us have not occu- 
pied a. very honourable status. 

The Eoglish have certainly effectively used the 
medical profession for holding us. English 
physicians are known to have used the profession 
with several Asiatic potentates for political gain. 


Doctors have almost unhiEged us. Some- 
times I think that quacks are better than highly 
qualified doctors. Let us consider : the business 
of a doctor is to take care of the body, or, properly 
speaking, not even that. Their business is really 
to rid the body of diseases that may afflict it. How 
do these diseases arise ? Surely by our negligence 
or indulgence. I overeat, I have indigestion, I go 
to a, doctor, he gives me medicine. I am cured, I 
overeat again, and I take his pills again. Had I 
not taken the pills in the first instance, I would 
have suffered the punishment deserved by me, and 
I would not have overeaten again. The doctor 
intervened and helped me to indulge myself. My 
body thereby certainly felt more at ease, but my 
mind became weakened. A continuance of a 
course of a medicine must, therefore, result in loss 
of control over the mind. 

I have indulged in vice, I contract a disease, 
a doctor cures me, the odds are that I shall repeat 
the vice. Had- the doctor not intervened, nature 
would have done its work, and I would have 
acquired mastery over myself, would have been freed 
from vice, and would have become happy. 

Hospitals are insiitutions for propagating sin. 
Men take less care of their bodies, and immorality 
increases. European doctors are the worst of all. 
For the sake of a mistaken care of the human body, 
they kill annually thousands of animals. They 


practise vivisection. No religign sanctions this. 
All say that it is not necessary to take so many 
lives for the sake of our bodies. 

These doctors violate our religious instinct. 
Most of their medical preparations contain either 
animal fat or spirituous liquors ; both of these are 
tabooed by Hindus and Mahomedans. We may 
pretend to be civilised, call religious prohibitions a 
.superstition and wantonly indulge in what we like. 
The fact remains that the doctors induce us to 
indulge, and the result is that we have become 
deprived of self-control and have become effeminate. 
In these circumstance?, we are unfit to serve the 
country. To study European medicine is to deepen 
four slavery. 

It is worth considering why we take up the 
profession of medicine. It is certainly not taken up 
for the purpose of serving humanity. We become 
doctors so that we may obtain honours and riches. 
I have endeavoured to show that there is no real 
service of humanity in the profession, and that it is 
injurious to mankind. Doctors make a show of their 
knowledge, and charge exorbitant fees. Their 
preparati >ns, which are intrinsically worth a few 
pennies, cost shillings. The populace in its 
credulity and in the nope of ridding itself of some 
disease, allow.-' itself to be cheated. Are not quacks 
then, whom we know, better thau the doctors who 
put on an air o v humaneness ? 


What is True Civilization ? 

Reader : You have denounced railways, 
lawyers and doctors. I can see that you will discard 
all machinery. What, then, is civilization? 

Editor : The answer to that question is not 
difficult. I believe that the civilization India has 
evolved is not to be beaten in the world. Nothing 
can equal the seeds sown by our ancestors. Rome 
went, Greece shared the same fate, the mighc of the 
Pharaohs was broken, Japan has become westernis- 
ed, of China nothing can be said, but India is still, 
somehow or other, sound at the foundation. The 
people of Europe learn their lessons from the 
writings of the men of Greece or Rome, which exist 
no longer in their former glory. In trying to learn 
from them, the Europeans imagine that they will 
avoid the mistakes of Greece and Rome. Such is 
their pitiable condition. In the midst of all this 
India remains immovable, and that is her glory. It 
is, a charge against India that her people are so 
uncivilised, ignorant and stolid, that it is not possible 
to induce them to adopt any changes. It is a charge 
really against our merit. What we have tested and 
found true on the anvil of experience, we dare not 
change. Many thrust their advice upon India, and 
she remains steady. This is her beauty ; it is the 
sheet-anchor of our hope. 


Civilization is that mode of conduct which 
points out to. man the path of duty. Performance 
of duty and observance of morality are convertible 
terms. To observe morality is to attain mastery 
over our mind and our passions. So doing, we 
know ourselves. The G-ajarati equivalent for 
civilization means " good conduct." 

If this definition be correct, then India, as 
so many writers have shown, has nothing to learn 
from anvbody else, and this is as it should be. 
We notice that mind is a restless bird ; the more it 
gets the more it wants, and still remains unsatis- 
fied. The more we indulge our passions, the more 
unbridled they become. Our ancestors, therefore, 
set a limit to our indulgences. They saw that 
happiness was largely a mental condition. A man 
is not necessarily h^ppy because he is rich, or un- 
happy because he is poor. The rich are often seem 
to be unhappy, the poor to be happy. Millions will 
always remain poor. Observing all this, our 
ancestors dissuaded U3 from luxuries and pleasures. 
We have managed witn the same kind of plough as 
it existed thousands of years ago. We have retain- 
ed the same kind of cottages that we had in former- 
times and our indigenous education remains the 
same as before. We have had no system of life- 
corroding competition. Each followed his own 
occupation or trade, and charged a regulation wage. 


It was not that we did not know how to invent 
machinery, but our forefathers knew that, if we set 
our hearts after such things, we would become 
slaves and lose our moral fibre. They, therefore, 
after due deliberation, decided that we should only 
do what- we could with our hands and feet. They 
saw that our real happiness and health consisted 
in a proper use of our hands and feet. They further 
reasoned that large cities were a snare aod a useless 
encumbrance, and that people would not be happy 
in them, that there would be gangs of thieves and 
robbers, prostitution and vice flourishing in them, 
and that poor men would be robbed by rich 
men. They were, therefore, satisfied with small 
villages. They saw. that kings and their swords 
were inferior to the sword of ethics, and they, 
therefore, held the sovereigns of the earth to be 
inferior to the Rishis and the Fakirs. A nation with 
a constitution like this is fitter to teach others than 
to learn from others. This nation had courts, lawyers 
and doctors, but they were all within bounds. 
Everybody knew that these professions were not 
particularly superior ; moreover, these vakils and 
vaids did not rob people ; they were considered 
people's dependents, not their masters. Justice 
was tolerably fair. The ordinary rule was to avoid 
courts. There were no touts to lure people into 
them. This evil, too, was noticeable only in and 
around capitals. The common people lived independ- 


ently, and followed their agricultural occupation. 
They enjoyed true Home Rule. 

And where this cursed modern civilization has 
not reached, India remains as it was before. The 
inhabitants of that part of India will very properly 
laugh at your newfangled notions. The English 
do not rule over them nor will you ever rule over 
them. Those whose name we speak we do not 
know, nor do they know us. I would certainly 
advise you and those like you who love the mother- 
land to go into the interior that has yet not been 
polluted by the railways, and to live there for six 
months; you might then be patriotic and speak of 
Home Rule. 

Now you see what I consider to be real civili- 
zation. Those who want to change conditions such 
as I have described are enemies of the country and 
are sinners. 

Reader : It would be all right if India were 
exactly as you have described it ; but it is also India 
where there are hundreds of child-widows, where 
two-year-old babies are married, where twelve-year- 
old girls are mothers and housewives, where women 
practise polyandry, where the practice of Niyog 
obtains, where, in the name of religion, girls dedicate 
themselves to prostitution, and where, in the name 
of religion, sheep and goats are killed. Do you 
consider these also symbols of the civilization that 
you have described ? 


Editor : You make a mistake. The defects that 
you have shown are defects. Nobody mistakes 
them for ancient civilization. They remain in 
spite of it. Attempts have always been made, and 
will be made, to remove them. We may utilise 
the new spirit that is born in us for purging 
ourselves of these evils. But what 1 have describ- 
ed to you as emblems of modern civilization are 
accepted as such by its votaries- The Indian civili- 
zation, as descfibed by me, has been so described 
by its votaries. In no part of the world, and 
under no civilization, have all men t attained 
perfection. The tendency of Indian civilization is 
to elevate the moral being, that of the western 
civilization is to propagate immorality. The latter 
is godless, the former is based on a belief in God. 
So understanding and so believing, it behoves every 
lover of India to cling to the old Indian civilization 
even as a child clings to its mother's breast. 


How Can India Become Free? 

Reader : I appreciate your views about cvili- 

zation. I will nave to think over them. 1 cannot 

take in all at once. What, then, holding the views 

you do, would you suggest for freeing India ? 

Editor: I do not expect my views to be 
accepted all of a sudden. My duty is to place them 


before readers like yourself. Time can be trusted- 
to do the rest. We have already examined the 
conditions for freeing India, but we have done so 
indirectly; we will now do so directly. It is a 
world-known maxim that the removal of the cause 
of a disease results in the removal of the disease 
itself Similarly, if the cause of India's slavery be 
removed, India can become free. 

Reader : If Indian civilization is, as you say, 
the best of all, how do you account for India's 
slavery ? 

Editor : This civilization is unquestionably 
the best; but it is to be observed that all civilizations 
have been on their trial. That civilization which is- 
permanent outlives it. Because the sons of India 
were found wanting, its civilization has been 
placed in jeopardy . But its strength is to be seen 
in its ability to survive the shock. Moreover, the 
whole of India is not touched. Those alone 
who have been affected by western civiliza- 
tion have become enslaved. We measure the uni- 
verse by our own miserable foot-rule, When we 
are slaves, we think that the whole universe is 
enslaved, Because we are in an abject condition, 
we think that the whole of India is in that condi- 
tion. As a matter of fact, it is not so, but it is a& 
well to impute our slavery to the whole of India. 
But if we bear in mind the above fact we can see 
that, if we become tree, India is free*. And in thie 


thought; you have a definition of Swaraj. It is 
Swaraj when we learn to rale ourselves. It is 
therefore in ihe palm of our hands. Do not con- 
sider this Swaraj to be like a dream. Hence there 
is no idea of sitting still. The Swaraj that I wish 
to picture before you and me is such that, after we 
have once reatised it, we will endeavour to the end 
of our lifetime to persuade others to do likewise. 
Bat such Swaraj has to be experienced by 
each one for himself. One drowning man will 
never save another. Slaves ourselves, it would be 
a mere pretension to think of freeing others. Now 
you will have seen that it is not necessary for us 
to have as our goal the expulsion of the English. 
If the English become Indianised, we can accom- 
modate them. If they wish to remain in India 
along with their civilization, there is no room for 
them. It lies with us to bring about such a state 
of things, 

Reader : It is impossible that Englishmen 
should ever become Indianised. 

Editor: To say that is equivalent to saying 
that the English have no humanity in them. And 
it is really beside the point whether they become so 
or not. If we keep our own house in order, only 
those who are fit to live in it will remain. Others 
will leave of their own accord. Such things occur 
within the experience of all of us. 

Reader : But it has not occurred in history ! 


Editor : To believe that, wfot has not occurred 
in history will not occur at ail, is to argae dis- 
belief in the dignity of man. At any rate, it behoves 
us to try what appeals to our reason. All countries 
are not similarly conditioned. The condition of 
India is unique. Its strength is immeasurable. We 
need not, therefore, refer to the history of other 
countries. I have drawn attention to the fact 
that, when other civilizations have succumbed, 
th~! Indians has survived many a shock. 

Reader: I cannot follow this. There seems 
little doubt that we shall have to expel the English by 
force of arms. So long as they are in the country, 
we cannot rest. One of our poets says that slaves 
cannot even dream of happiness. We are, day by 
day, becoming weakened owing to the presence of 
the English. Our greatness is gone; our people 
look like terrified men. The English are in the 
country like a blight which we must remove by 
every means. 

Editor ; In your excitement, you have for- 
gotten all we have been considering. We brought 
the English, and we keep them. Why do you forget 
that our adoption of their civilization makes their 
presence in India at all possible? Your hatred 
against them ought to be transferred to their civiliza- 
tion. But let us assume that we have to drive away 
the English by fighting ; how is that to be done ? 


Reader : In the same way as Italy did it. 
What it was possible for Mazzini and Garibaldi to 
do, is possible for us. You cannot deny that they 
were very great men. 


Italy and India 
Editor : It is well that you have instanced 
Italy. Mazzini was a great and good man; 
Garibaldi was a great warrior. Both are adorable; 
from their lives we can learn much. But the con- 
dition of Italy was different from that of India. In 
the first instance the difference between Mazzini 
and Garibaldi is worth noting. Mazzini's ambition 
was not, and has not yet been realised, regarding 
Italy. Mazzini has shown in his writings on the 
duty of man that every man must learn how to rule 
himself. This has not happened in Italy. Garibaldi 
did not hold this vi^w of Mazzini's. Garibaldi 
gave, and every Italian took arms. Italy and Austria 
had the same civilization : they were cousins 
in this respect. It was a matter of tit for tat. 
Garibaldi simply wanted Italy to be free from the 
Austrian yoke. The machinations of Minister 
Cavour disgrace that portion of the history of Italy. 
And what h^s been the result ? If you believe 
that, because Italians rule Italy, the Italian 
nation is happy, you are gtoping in darkness, 


Mazzini has shown conclusively that Italy did 
not become free. Victor Emanuel gave one 
meaning to the expression; Mazzini gave another. 
According to Emanuel, Cavour, and even Garibaldi, 
Italy meant the King of Italy and his henchmen. 
According to Mazzini. it meant the whole of the 
Italian people, that is, its agriculturists. Emanuel 
was only its servant. The Italy of Mazzini 
still remains in a. state of slavery. At the time 
of the so-called national war, it was a game of 
chess between two rival kings, with the people of 
Italy as pawns. The working classes in that land 
are still unhappy. They therefore indulge in 
assassination, rise in revoU, and rebellion on their 
part is always expected. What substantial gain did 
Italy obtain after the withdrawal of the Austrian 
troops? The gain was only nominal. The reforms, for 
the sake of which the war was supposed to have been 
undertaken, have not yet been granted. The cond i- 
tion of the people, in general, still remains the same. 
I am sure you do not wish to reproduce such a 
condition in India. I Relieve that you want the 
millions of India to be happy, not that you want 
the reins of Government in your hands. If that be 
so, we have to consider only one thing : how can 
the millions obtain self-rule? You will admit that 
people under several Indian princes are being 
ground down. The latter mercilessly crush them. 
Their tyranny is greater than that of the English, 


and, if you want such tyranny in India, that we 
shail never agree. My patriotism does not teach 
me that I am to allow people to be crushed under 
the beel of Indian princes, if only the English 
retire. If I have the power, I should resist the 
tyranny of Indian princes just as much as that of 
the English. By patriotism I mean the welfare of 
the whole people, and, if I could secure it at the 
hands of the English, I should bow down my head 
to them. If any Englishman dedicated his life k> 
securing the freedom of India, resisting tyranny 
and serving the land, I should welcome that Eng- 
lishman as an Indian. 

Again, India can fight like Italy only when she 

has arms. You have not considered this problem at 

all. The English are splendidy armed; that does not 

frighten me, but it is clear that, to fit ourselves 

against them in arms, thousands of Indians must be 

armed. If such a thing be possible, how many years 

will it take. Moreover, to arm India on a large scale 

is to Europeanise it. Then her condition will be 

just as pitiable as that of Europe. This means, in 

short, that India must accept European civil izition, 

and if that is what we want, the best thing is that 

we have among us those who are so well trained in 

that civilization. We will then fight for a few rights, 

will get what we can and so pass our days. But the 

fact is ttfat the Indian nation will not adopt arms, 

and it is well that it does not. 


Reader : You are overassuming facts. All 
need not be armed. At first, we will assassinate a 
few Englishmen and strike terror; then a few men 
who will have been armed will fight openly. We 
may have to lose a quarter of a million men, more 
or less, but we will regain our land. We will under- 
take guerilla warfare, and defeat the English. 

Editor : That is to say, you want to make the 
holy land of India unholy. Do you not tremble to 
think of freeing India by assassination? What we 
need to do is to kill ourselves. It is a cowardly 
thought, that of killing others Whom do you sup- 
pose to free by assassination ? The millions of India 
oo not desire it. Those who are intoxicated bv the 
wretched modern civilization think of these things. 
Those who will rise to power by murder will cer- 
tainly not make the nation happy. Tnose who 
believe that India has gained by Dhingra's act and 
such other acts in India make a serious mistake- 
Dhingra was a patriot, but his love was blind. He 
gave his body in a wrong way ; its ultimate result 
can only be mischievous. 

Reader : But you will admit that the English 
have been frightened by these murders, and that 
Lord Morley's reforms are due to fear. 

Editor : The English are both a timid and a 
brave nation. She is, I believe, easilv influenced bv 
the use of gunpowder. It is possible that Lord 
Morley has granted the reforms through fear but 


what is granted under fear can be regained only so 
long as the fear lasts. 


Reader : This is a new doctrine ; that what is 
gained through fear is retained only while the fear 
lasts. Surely, what is given will not be withdrawn ? 

Editor : Not so. The Proclamation of 1857 
was given at ihe end of a revolt, and for the pur- 
pose of preserving peace. When peace was secured 
and pepole became simple-minded, its full effect was 
toned down. If I ceased stealing for fear of punish- 
ment, I would re-commence the operation so soon 
as the fear is withdrawn from me. This is almost a 
universal experience. We have assumed that we 
can get men to do things by force and, therefore, 
we use force. 

Reader: Will you not admit that you are 
arguing against yourself? You know that what the 
English obtained in their own country they have 
obtained by using brute-force, I know you have 
argued that what they have obtained is useless, but 
that does not affect my argument. They wanted 
useless things, and they got them. My point is 
tbat their desire was fulfilled. What does it matter 
what means they adopted ? Why should we not 
obtain our goal which is good, by any meaus- 


whatsoever even by using violence? Shall I think 
of the means when I have to deal with a thief in 
the house ? My duty is to drive bim out anyhow. 
You seem to admit that we have received nothing, 
and that we shall receive nothing by petitioning. 
Why, then, may we not do so by using brute-force? 
And, to retain what we may receive, we shall keep 
up the fear by using the same force to the extent 
that it may be necessary. You will not find fault 
with a continuance of force to prevent a child from 
thrusting its foot into fire? Somehow or other, we 
have to gain our end. 

Editor: Year reasoning is plausible. It has 
deluded many. I have used similar arguments before 
now. But I think I know better now, and I shall 
endeavou/ to undeceive you. Let us first take. the 
argument that we are justified in gaining our end 
by using brute-force, because the English gained 
theirs by using similar means. It is perfectly 
true that they used brute-force, and that it is 
possible for us to do likewise : but by using 
similar means, we can get only the same thing 
that they got. You will admit that we do not 
want that. Your belief that there is no connection 
between the means and the end is a great mistake. 
Through that mistake even men who have been 
considered religious have committed grievous 
crimes. Your reasoning is the same as saying that 
we can get a rose through planting a noxious 


weed. If I want to cross the ocean, I can do so- 
only by means of a vessel ; if I were to use a cart 
for that purpose, both the cart and I would soon 
find the bottom. "As is the God, so is the votary," 
is a maxim worth considering Its meaning has 
been distorted, and men have gone astray. The 
means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree;, 
and there is just the same inviolable connection 
between the means and the end as there is between 
the seed and toe tree. I am not likely to obtain 
the result flowing from the worship of God by 
laying myself prostrate before Satan. If, therefore, 
anyone were to say : "I want to worship God: it 
does not matter that I do so by means of Satan," 
it would be set down as ignorant folly. We reap 
exactly as we sow. The English in 1833 obtained 
greater voting power by violence. Did they, by using 
brute-force, better appreciate their duty ? They 
wanted the right of voting, which they obtained by 
using physical-force. But real rights are a result 
of performance of duty ; these rights they have not 
obtained. We, therefore, have before us in England 
the force of everybody wanting and insisting on 
his rights, nobody thinking of his duty. And, where 
everybody wants rights, who shall give them and to 
whom ? I do not wish to imply that they never 
perform their duty, but I do wish to imply that they 
do not perform the duty to which those rights 
should correspond ; and, as they do not perform 


that particular duty, namely, acquire fitness, their 
rights have proved a burden to them. In other 
words, what they have obtained is an exaet result 
of the means they adopted. They used the means 
corresponding to the end. If I want to deprive you 
of your watch, I shall certainly have to fight for it ; 
if I want to buy your watch, I shall have to pay you 
for it ; and, if I want a gift, I shall have to plead for 
it ; and, according to the means I employ, the 
watch is stolen property, my own property, or a 
donation. Thus we see three different results from 
three different means. Will you still say that 
means do not matter ? 

Now we shall take the example given by you 
of the thief to be driven out. I do not agree with 
you that the thief may be driven out by any 
means. If it is my father who has come to steal 
I shall use one kind of means. If it is an 
acquaintance, I shall use another ; and, in the case 
of a perfect stranger, I shall use a third. If it is 
a white man, you will perhaps say, you will use 
means different from those you will adopt with an 
Indian thief If it is a weakling, the means will 
be different from those to be adopted for dealing 
with an equal in physical strength ; and, if the 
thief is armed from tip to "toe, I shall simply 
remain quiet.. Thus we have a variety of means 
between the father and the armed man. Again, I 
fancy that I should pretend to be sleeping whether 


the thief was my father or that strong-armed man. 
The reason for this is that my father would also 
be armed, and I should succumb to the strength 
possessed by either, and allow my things to be 
stolen. The strength of my father' would make 
me weep with pity ; the strength of the armed man 
would rouse in me anger, and we should become 
enemies. Such is the curious situation. From 
these examples, we may not be able to agree as to 
the means to be adopted in each case. I myself 
seem clearly to see what should be done in all 
these cases, but the remedy may frighten you. 
I, therefore, hesitate to place it before you. For 
the time being, I will leave you to guess it, and, 
if you cannot, it is clear that you will have to 
adopt different means in each case. You will 
also have seen that any means willl not avail to 
drive away the thief. You will have to adopt means 
to fit each case. Hence it follows that your duty 
is not to drive away the thief by any means you 

Let us proceed a little further. That a well- 
armed man has stolen your property, you have 
harboured the thought, you are filled with anger ; 
you argue that you want to punish that rogue, 
not for your own sake, but for the good of your 
neighbours ; you have collected a number of armed 
men, you want to take his house by assault, 
he is duly informed of it, he runs away ; he 


too, is incensed. He collects his brother- 
robbers, and sends you a defiant message that 
he will commit robbery in broad day-light. You 
are strorjg, you do not fear him, you are prepared 
to receive him. Meanwhile, the robber pesters your 
neighbours. They complain before you, you reply 
that you are doing ail for their sake ; you do not 
mind that your own goods have been stolen. Your 
neighbours reply that the robber never pestered 
them before, and that he commenced his depreda- 
tions only after you declared hostilities against him. 
You are between Sylla and Charybdis. You are 
full of pity for the poor men. What they say is 
true. What are you to do ? You will be disgraced 
if you now leave the robber alone. You, therefore, 
tell the poor men: ''Never mind. Come, my wealth 
is yours, I will give you arms, I will teach yon how 
to use them ; you should belabour the rogue ; don't 
you leave him alone." And so the battle grows; 
the robbers increase in number ; your neighbours 
have deliberately put themselvs to inconvenience. 
Thus the result of wanting to take revenge upon 
the robber is that you have disturbed your own 
peace ; you are in perpetual fear of being robbed and 
assaulted ; your courage has given place to cowardice. 
If you will patiently examine the argument, you will 
see that I have not overdrawn the picture. This is 
one of the means. Now let us examine *he other. 
You set this armed robber down as an ignorant 


brother ; you intend to reason with him at a suitable 
opportunity ; you argue that he is, after all, a fellow- 
man ; you do not know what prompted him to steal. 
You, therefore, decide that, when you can, you will 
destroy the man's motive for stealing. Whilst you 
are thus reasoning with yourself, the man comes 
again to steal. Instead of being angry with him, 
you take pity on him. You think that this stealing 
habit must be a disease with him. Henceforth 
you, therefore, keep your doors and windows open ; 
you change your sleeping-place, and you keep 
your things in a manner most accessible to him. 
The robber comes again, and is confused, as all 
this is new to him ; nevertheless, he takes away 
your things. But his mind is agitated. He 
inquires about you in the village, he comes to 
learn # about your broad and loving heart, he re- 
pents, he begs your pardon, returns you your 
things, and leaves off the stealing habit. He 
becomes your servant, and you find for him 
honourable employment. This is the second method. 
Thus, you see different means have brought about 
totalely different results. I do not wish to deduce 
from this that robbers will act in the above 
manner or that all will have the same pity 
and love like you ; but I wisii only to show that 
only fair means can produce fair results, and that, 
al least in the majority of cases, if not, indeed, 
in all, the force of love and pity is ^infinitely greater 


than the force of arms. There is harm in the 
exercise of brute-force, never in that of pity. 

Now we will take the question of petitioning. 
It is a fact beyond dispute that a petition, with- 
out the backing of force, is useless. However, the 
late Justice Ranade used to say that petitions 
served a useful purpose because fchey were a means 
of educating people. They give the latter an idea 
of their condition, and warn the rulers. From 
this point of view, they are not altogether useless. 
A petition of an equal is a sign of courtesy ; a 
petition from a slave is a symbol of his slavery, 
A petition backed by force is a petition from an 
equal and, when he transmits his demand in the 
form of a petition, it testifies to his nobility. 
Two kinds of force can back petitions. "We will 
hurt you if you do not give this" is one kind of 
force ; it is the force of arms, whose evil results 
we have already examined. The second kind of 
force can thus be stated : "If you do not concede 
our demand, we will be no longer your petitioners 
You can govern us only so long as we remain 
the governed ; we shall no longer have any dealings 
with you." The force implied in this may be 
described as love-force, soul-force, or, more popularly 
but less accurately, passive resistance. This force 
is indestructible. He who uses it perfectly under- 
stands his position. We have an ancient proverb 
which literally means "One negative cures 


thirty-six diseases." The force of arms is powerless 
when matched against the force of love or the soul. 

Now we shall take your last illustration, that 
of the child thrusting its foot into fire. It will not 
avail you. What do you really do to the child? 
Supposing that it can exert so much physical force 
that it renders you powerless and rushes into 
fire, then you cannot prevent it. There are 
only two remedies open to you — either you 
must kill it in order to prevent it- from perish- 
ing in the flames, or you must give your own 
life, because you do not wish to see it perish 
before your very eyes. You will not kill it. If your 
heart is not quite full of pity, it is possible that 
you will not surrender yourself by preceding the 
child and going into the fire yourself. You, there- 
fore, helplessly allow it to go into the flames. Thus, 
at any rate, you are not using physical force. I hope 
you will not consider that it is still physical-force, 
though of a low order, when you would forcibly 
prevent the child from rushing towards the fire if 
you could. That force is of a different order, and 
we have to understand what it is. 

Remember that, in thus preventing the child, 
you are minding entirely its own interest, you are 
exercising authority for its sole benefit. Your 
example does not apply to the English. In using 
brute-force against the English, you consult entirely 
your own, that is the national interest There is no 


question here either of pity or of love. If you say 
that the actions of the English, being evil, represent 
fire, and that they proceed to their actions 
through ignorance, and that, therefore, they 
occupy the position of a child, and that you want 
to protect such a child, then you will have to 
overtake every such ievil action by whomsoever 
committed, and, as in the case of the child, you 
will have to sacrifice yourself. If you are capable 
of such immeasurable pity, I wish you well in its 

Passive Resistance 

Reader : Is there any historical evidence as to 
the success of what you have called soul-force or 
truth-force? No instance seems to have happened 
of any nation having risen through soul-force. I 
still think that the evil-doers i will'not cease doing 
evil without physical punishment. 

Editor: The poet Tulsidas has said: "Of 
religion, pity or love is the root, as egotism of the 
body. Therefore, wo should not abandon pity so long 
as we are alive." This appears to me to be a 
scientific truth, I believe in it as much as I believe 
in two and two being four. The force of love is the 
same as the force of the soul or truth. We have 
evidence of its working at every, step. The universe 


would disappear without the existence of that 
force. But you ask for historical evidence. It is, 
therefore^ necessary to know what history means. 
The Gujarati equivalent means : "It so happened " 
If that is the meaning of history, it is possible to 
give copious evidence. But if it means the doings 
of kings and emperors, there can be no evidence of 
soul-force or passive resistance in such history. You 
cannot expect silver-ore in a tin-mine. History, as 
we know it, is a record of the wars of the world, 
and so there is a proverb among Englishmen that 
a nation which has no history, that is, no wars, is a 
happy nation. How kings played bow they become 
enemies of one another and how they murdered one 
another is found accurately recorded in history 
and, if this were all that had happened in the 
world, it would have been ended long ago. If the 
story of the universe had commenced with wars, 
not a man would have been found alive to-day. 
Those people who have been warred against h$ve 
disappeared, as, for instance, the natives of 
Australia, of whom hardly a man was left alive by 
the intruders.. Mark, please, that these natives did 
not use soul-force in self-defence, and it does not 
require much foresight to know that the Australians 
will share the same fate as their victims " Those 
that wield the sword shall perish by the sword.'* 
With us, the proverb is that professional swimmers 
will find a watery grave. 


The fact that there are so many men still alive- 
in the world shows that it is based not on the force 
of arms but on the force of truth or love. Therefore 
the greatest and most unimpeachable evidence of 
the success of this force is to be found in the fact 
that, in spite of the wars of the world, it still lives 

Thousands, indeed, tens of thousands, depend 
for their existence on a very active working 
of this force. Little quarrels of millions of 
families in their daily lives disappear before the 
exercise of this force. Hundreds of nations live in 
peace. History does not and cannot take note of 
this fact. History is really a record of every inter- 
ruption of the even working of the force of love 
or of the soul. Two brothers quarrel : one of them 
repents and re-awakens: the love that was lying 
dormant in him ; the two again begin to live in 
peace: nobody takes note of this. But if the two 
brothers, through the intervention of solicitors or 
some other reason, take up arms or go to law— 
which is another form of the exhibition of brute- 
force— their doings would be immediately noticed 
in the press, they would be the talk of their neigh- 
bours, and would probably go down to history. 
And what is true cf families and communities is, 
true of nations. There is no reason, to believe 
that there is one law for families, and another 
for nations. History, then, is a record of an- 


interruption of the course of nature. Soul-force, 
being natural, is not noted in history. 

Readek : According to what you say, it is 
plain that instances of the kind of passive resistance 
are not to be found in history. It is necessary 
to understand this passive resistance more fully. 
It will be better, therefore, if you enlarge upon it. 

Editor : Passive resistance is a method of 
securing rights by personal suffering ; it is the 
reverse of resistance by arms. When I refuse to 
do a thing that is repugnant to my conscience, I 
use soul-force. For instance, the government of 
the day has passed a law which is applicable to 
me : I do not like it, if, by using violence, I 
force the government to repeal the law. I am 
employing what may be termed body-force. If I 
do not obey the law and accept the penalty for 
its breach, I use soul-force. It involves sacrifice 
of self. 

Everybody admits that sacrifice of self is 
infinitely superior to sacrifice of others. Moreover, 
if this kind of force is used in a cause that is unjust 
only the person using it suffers. He does not make 
others suffer for his mistakes. Men have .before now 
done many things which were subsequently found r 
to have been wrong. No man can claim to be 
absolutely in the right, or that a particular thing is 
wrong, because # he thinks so, but it is wrong for 
him so long as that is his deliberate judgment , 


It is, therefore, meet thathe should not do that 
which he knows to be wrong, and suffer the 
consequence whatever it may be. This is the 
key to the use of soul % force. 

Header : You would then disregard laws — 
this is rack disloyalty. We have always been 
considered a law-abiding nation. You seem to be 
going even beyond the extremists. They say that 
we must obey the laws that have been passed, bus 
that, if the laws be bad, we must drive out the 
law-givers even by force. 

Editor: Whether I go beyond them or 
whether J[ do not, is a matter of no consequence to 
either of us. We simply want to find out what is 
right, and to act accordingly. The real meaning 
of the statement that we are a law-abiding nation 
is that we are passive resisters. When we do not 
like certain laws, we do not break the heads of 
law-givers, but we suffer and do not submit to the 
laws. That we should obey laws whether good or 
bad is a new-fangled notion. There was no such 
thing in former days. The people disregarded 
those laws they did not like, and suffered the 
penalties for their breach. It is contrary to our 
manhood, if we obey laws repugnant to our 
conscience. Such teaching is opposed to religion 
and means slavery. If the government were to 
ask us to go about without any clothing, should we 
do so ? If I were a passive resister, I would say to 


them that I would have nothing to do with their 
law. But we have so forgotten ourselves and become 
so compliant, that we do not mind any degrading 


A man who has realised his manhood, who fears 
only God, will fear no one else, Man-made laws 
are not necessarily binding on him. Even the gov- 
ernment do not expect any such thing from us. 
They do not say : " You must do such and such a 
thing," but they sav : " If you do not do it, we will 
punish you." We are sunk so low, that we fancy 
that it is our duty and our religion to do what the 
law lays down. If man will only realise that it is 
unmanly to obey laws that are - unjust, no man's 
tyranny will enslave him. This is the key to self- 
rule or home-rule. 

It is a superstition and an ungodly thing 
to believe that an act of a majority binds a mino- 
rity- Many examples can be given in which 
acts of majorities will be found to have been 
wrong, and those of minorities to have been 
right. All reforms owe their origin to the initiation 
of minorities in opposition to majorities. If among 
a band of robbers, a knowledge of robbing is obli- 
gatory, is a pious man to accept the obligation ? ^ So 
long as the superstition that men should obey unjust 
laws exists, so long will their slavery exist. And 
a passive resister alone can remove such a super- 


To use brute-force, to use gun-powder is contrary 
to passive resistance; for it means that we want our 
opponent to do by force — that which we desire but 
he dees not. And, if such a use of force is justifi- 
able, surely he is entitled to do likewise by us. And 
so we should never come to an agreement. We 
may simply fancy, like the blindborse moving in 
a circle round a mill, that we are making progress. 
Those who believe that they are not bound to obey 
laws which are repugnant to their conscience have 
only the remedy of passive resistance open to them. 
Any other must lead to disaster. 

Reader : From what you say, I deduce that 
passive resistance is a splendid weapon of the weak 
but that, when they are strong, they may take up 

Editor : This is gross ignorance Passive 
resistance, that is, soul-force, is matchless. It is 
superior to the force of arms. How, then, can it be 
considered only a weapon of the weak ? Physical- 
force men are strangers to the courage that is 
requisite in a passive resister. Do you believe that a 
coward can ever disobey a law that he dislikes ? 
Extremists are considered to be advocates of brute- 
force. "Why do they, then, talk about obeying laws? 
I do not blame them. They can say nothing else. 
When they succeed in driving out the English, and 
they themselves become governors, they will want 
you and me to obey their laws. And that is a 


fitting thing for their constitution. But a passive 
resister will say he will not obey a law that is against 
his conscience, even though he may be blown to 
pieces at the mouth of a cannon. 

What do you think? Wherein is courage 
required— in blowing others to pieces from behind 
a cannon or with a smiling face to approach a 
cannon and to be blown to pieces ? Who is the 
true warrior— he who keeps death always as a 
bosom-friend or he who controls the death of 
others? Believe me that a man devoid of courage 
and manhood can never be a passive resister. 

This, however, I will admit: that even a 
man, weak in body, is capable of offering this resist- 
ance. One man can offer it just as well as millions- 
Both men and women can indulge in it. It does 
not require the training of an army ; it needs no 
Jiu-jitsu. Control over the mind is alone necessary, 
and, when that is attained, man is free like the king 
of the forest, and his very glance withers the 


Passive resistance is an all-sided sword ; it can 
be used anyhow ; it blesses him who uses it and 
him against whom it is used. Without drawing 
a drop of blood, it produces far-reaching results. 
It never rusts, and cannot be stolen. Competition 
between passive resisters does not exhaust. The 
sword of passive resistance does not require a 
scabbard. It is strange indeed that you should: 


consider such a weapon to be a weapan merely of 
the weak. 

Reader: You have said that passive resistance 
is a speciality of India, Have cannons never been 
used in India ? 

Editor: Evidently, in your opinion, India 
means its few princes. To me, it means its teeming 
millions, on whom depends the existence of its 
princes and our own. 

Kings will always use their kingly weapons. 
To use force is bred in them. They want 
to command, but those who have to obey commands, 
do not want guns; and these are in a majority 
throughout the world. They have to learn either 
body-force or soul-force. Where they learn the 
former, both the rulers and the ruled become like so 
many mad men, but, where they learn soul-force, 
the commands of the rulers do not go beyond the 
point of their swords, for true men disregard unjust 
commands. Peasants have never been subdued 
hy the sword, and never will be. They do 
not know the use of the sword, and they are 
not frightened by the use of it by others. That 
nation is great which rests its head upon death as 
its pillow. Those who defy death are free from all 
fear. For those who are labouring under the 
delusive charms of brute-force, this picture is not 
Overdrawn. The fact is that, in India, the nation 
at large has generally used passive resistance in all 


departments of life. We c-ase to co-operate with 
our rulers when they displease us. This is passive 

I remember an instance when, in a small 
principality, the villagers were offended by some 
command issued by the prince. The former im- 
mediately began vacating the village. The prince 
became nervous, apologised' to his subjects and 
withdrew his command. Many such instances can 
be found in India. Real home-rule is possible only 
where passive resistance is the guiding force of the 
people. Any other rule is foreign rule. 

Reader: Then you will say that it is not at 
all necessary for us to train the body ? 

Editor : I will certainly not say any such thing. 
It is diffcult to become a passive resister, unless 
the body is trained. As a rule, the mind, residing 
in a body that has become weakened by pampering, 
is also weak, and where there is no strength of 
mind, there can be no strength of soul. We will have 
to improve our physique by getting rid of infant 
• marriages and luxurious living. If I were to ask a 
man having a shattered body to face a cannon's 
mouth I would make of myself a laughing-stock. 

Reader : From what you say, then, it would 
appear that it is not a small thing to become a 
passive resister, and, if that is so, I* would like you 
to explain how a man may become a passive 


Editor : To become a passive resister is easy 
enough, but it is also equally difficult. I have 
known a lad of fourteen years become a passive 
resister ; I have known also sick people doing like- 
wise and I have also known physically strong and 
otherwise happy people being unable to take up 
passive resistance. After a great deal of experience, 
it seems to me that those who want to become 
passive resisters for the sevice of the country have 
to observe perfect chastity, adopt poverty, follow 
truth, and cultivate fearlessness. 

Chastity is one of the greatest disciplines 
without which the mind cannot attain requisite 
firmness. A man who is unchaste loses stamina, 
becomes emasculated and cowardly. He whose 
mind is given over to animal passions is not 
capable of any great effort. This can be proved 
by innumerable instances. What, then, is a 
married person to do, is the question that arises 
naturally ; and yet it need not. When a husband 
and wife gratify the passions, it is no less an animal 
indulgence on that account. Such an indulgence, 
except for perpetuating the race, is strictly 
prohibited. But a passive resister has to avoid even 
that very limited indulgence, because he can have 
no desire for progeny. A married man, therefore, 
can observe perfect chastity. This subject is not 
capable of being treated at greater length. Several 
questions arise : How is one to carry one's wife 


with one ? What are her rights, and such other 
questions ? Yet those who wish to take part in a 
great work are bound to solve these puzzles. 

Just as there is necessity for chastity, so is 
there for poverty. Pecuniary ambition and passive 
resistance cannot well go together. Those who 
have money are cot expected to throw it away, but 
they are expected to be indifferent about it. They 
must be prepared to lose every penny rather than 
give up passive resistance. 

Passive resistance has been described in the 
course of our discussion as truth-force. Truth, 
therefore, has necessarily to be followed, and that 
at any cost. In this connection, academic questions 
such as whether a man may not lie in order to save 
a life, etc. arise, but these questions occur only to 
those who wish to justify lying. Those who want 
to follow truth every time are not placed in such a 
quandary, and, if they are, they are still saved from 
a false position. 

Passive resistance cannot proceed a step with- 
out fearlessness. Those alone can follow the path 
of passive resistance who are free from fear 
whether as to their possessions, false honour, their 
relatives, the government, bodily injuries, death. 

These observances are not to be abandoned in 
the belief that they are difficult. Nature has 
implanted in the human breast ability to cope with 
any difficulty or suffering that may come to man 


unprovoked. These qualities are worth having, 
even for those who do not wish to serve 
the country. Let there be no mistake as 
those who want to train themselves in the use of 
arms are also obliged to have these qualities more 
or less. Everybody does not become a warrior for 
the wish, A woald-be warrior will have to observe 
chastity, and to be satisfied with poverty as his lot. 
A warrior without fearlessness cannot be conceived 
of. It may be thought that he would not need to 
be exactly truthful, but that quality follows real 
fearlessness. When a man abandons truth, he does 
so owing to fear in some shape or form. The 
above four attributes, then, need not frighteen any 
one. It may be as well here to note that a physi- 
cal-force man has to have many otber useless 
qualities which a passive resister never needs. 
And you will find that whatever extra effort a 
swordsman needs is due to lack of fearlessness. If 
he is an embodiment of the latter, the sword will 
drop from his hand that very moment He does 
not need its support. One who is free from hatred 
requires no sword. A man with a stick suddenly 
came face to face with a lion, and instinctively 
raised his weapon in self-defence. The man saw 
that he had only prated about fearlessness when 
there was none in him That moment he dropped 
the stick, and found himself free from all fear. 




Reader : In the whole of our discussion, yoa 
have cot demonstrated the necessity for education ; 
we always complain of its absence among us. We 
notice a movement for compulsory education in our 
country. The Maharaja of Gaekwar has introduced 
it in his territories. Every eye is directed towards 
them. We bless the Maharaja for it. Is all this 
effort then of no use? 

Editor : If we consider our civilization to be 
the highest, I have regretfully to say that much 
of the effort you have described is of no use. The 
motive of the Maharaja and other great leaders 
who have been working in this direction is perfectly 
pure. They, therefore, undoubtedly deserve great 
praise. But we cannot conceal from ourselves the 
result that is likely to flow from their effort. 

What is the meaning of education? If it simply 
means a knowledge of letters, it is merely an 
instrument, and an instrument may be well used 
or abused. The same instrument that may be used 
to cure a patient may be used to take his life, and so 
may a knowledge of letters. We daily observe that 
many men abuse it, and very few make good use of 
it, and if this is a correct statement, we have proved 
that more harm has been done by it than good. 

The ordinary meaning of education is a 
knowledge of letters. To teach boys reading, 


writing and arithmetic is called primary education. 
A peasant earns his bread honestly. He has ordinary 
knowledge of the world. He knows fairly 
well how he should behave towards his parents, his 
wife, his children and his fellow-villagers. He 
understands and observes the rules of morality, But 
he cannot write his own name. Wbat do you pro- 
pose to do by giving him a knowledge of letters ? 
Will you add an inch to his happiness? Do you 
wish to make him discontented with his cottage or 
his lot ? And even if you want to do that, he will 
not need such an education. Carried away by the 
flood of western thought, we came to the conclu- 
sion, without weighing pros and cons, that we should 
give this kind of education to the people. 

Now let us take higher education. I have 
learned Geography, Astronomy, Algebra, Geometry, 
etc. What of that ? In what way have I benefitted 
myself or those around me? Why have I learned 
these things ? Professor Huxley has thus defined 
education: — "That man I think has had a liberal 
education who has been so trained in youth that his 
body is the ready servant of his will and does with 
ease and pleasure all the work that as a mechanism 
it is capable of, whose intellect is a clear, cold 
logic engine with all its parts of equal strength and 

in smooth working order whose miod is stored 

with a knowledge of the fundamental truths of 
na ture whose passions are trained to come 


to heel by a vigorous will, the servant oi a tender 

conscience who has learnt to hate all vile- 

ness and to respect others a3 himself. Such an one 
and no other, I conceive, has had a liberal educa- 
tion, for he is in harmony with Nature. He will 
make the best of her and she of him." 

If this be true education, I must emphatically 
say that the sciences I have enumerated above, I 
have never been able to use for controlling my 
senses. Therefore, whether you take elementary 
education or higher education, it is not required 
for the main thing. It does not make of us men* 
It does not enable us to do our duty. 

Reader: If that is so. I shall have to ask yoa 
another question. What enables you to tell all 
these things to me ? If you had not received 
higher education, how would you have been able 
to explain to me the things that you have ? 

Editor : You have spoken well. But my 
answer is simple: I do not for one moment]believe 
that my life would have been wasted, had I nob 
.received higher or lower education. Nor do I con- 
sider that I necessarily serve because I speak. But 
I do desire to serve and, in endeavouring to fulfil that 
desire, I make use of the education I have received. 
And, if I am making good use of it, even then it 13 
not for the millions, but I can Use it only for such 
as you, aud this supports my contention. Bjch you 
and I have come under the bane of what is mainly 


false education. I claim to have become free from 
its ill-effects, and I am trying to give you the benefit 
of my experience, and, in doing so, I am demon- 
strating the rottenness of this education. 

Moreover, I have not run down a knowledge of 
letters under all circumstances. Ail I have shown is 
that we must not make of it a fetish. It is not our 
Kamdhuk. In its'place it can be of use, and it has 
its place when we have brought our senses under 
subjection, and put our efchic3 on a firm foundation. 
And then, if we feel inclined to receive that edu- 
pation, we may make good use of it. As an orna- 
ment it is likely to sit well on us. It now follows 
that it is not necessary to make this education 
compulsory, Our ancient school system is enough. 
Character-building has the first place in it, and that 

is primary education . A building erected on that 

foundation will last. 

Header : Do I then understand that you 
do not consider English education necessary for 
obtaining Home Rule? 

Editor : My answer is yes and no. To give 
millions a knowledge of English is to enslave them. 
The foundation that Macaulay laid of education 
has enslaved us. 1 do not suggest that he had any 
such intention, but that has been the result. Is it 
not a sad commentary that we should have to speak 
of Home Rule, in a foreign tongue ? 


And it is worthy of note that the systems which 
the Europeans have discarded are the systems ifl 
■vogue among us. Their learned men continually 
make changes. We ignorantly adhere to their cast- 
off systems. They are trying each division to im- 
prove its own status. Wales is a small portion of 
England. Great efforts are being made to r-vive a 
knowledge of Welsh among Welshmen. The 
English Chancellor, Mr. Lloyd Greorge, is taking a 
leading part in the movement to make Welsh chil- 
dren speak Welsh. And what is our condition ? We 
write to each other in faulty English, and from this 
even, our M. A's are not free ; our best thought 
are expressed in English ; the proceedings of our 
Congress are conducted in English ; our best news- 
papers are printed in English. If this state of things 
continues for a long time, posterity will — it is my 
firm opinion — condemn and curse us. 

It is worth noting that, by receiving English 
education, we have enslaved the nation. Hypocrisy, 
tyranny, etc., have increased ; English-knowing 
Indians have not hesitated to cheat and strike terror 
into the people. Now, if we are doing anything for 
the people at all, we are paying only a portion of 
the debt due to them. 

Is it not a most painful thing that, if I want 
to go to a court of justice, I must employ the 
English language as medium ; that, when I become 
a barrister, I may not speak my mother-tongue, and 


that some one else should have to translate to me 
from my own language? Is not this absolutely 
absurd ? Is it not a sign of slavery ? Am I to 
blame the English for it or myself ? It is we, the 
English-knowing men, that have enslaved India, 
The curse of the nation will rest not upon the 
English but upon us. 

I have told, you that my answer to your last 
question is both yes and so. I have explained to 
you why it is yes. I shall now explain why it is no. 

We are so much beset by the disease of civiliza- 
tion, that we cannot altogether do without English 
education. Those who have already received 
it may make good use of it wherever neces- 
sary. In our dealings with the English people, in our 
dealings with our own people, when we can only 
correspond with them through that language, and 
for the purpose of knowing how much disgusted 
they (the English) have themselves become with 
their civilization, we may use or learn English, as 
the case may be. Those who have studied English 
will have to teach morality to their progeny through 
their mother-tongue, and to teach them another 
Indian language ; but when they have grown up, 
they may learn English, the ultimate aim being 
that we should not need it. The object of making 
money thereby should be eschewed. Even in 
learning English to such a limited extent we will 
have to consider what we should learn through ife 


and what we should not. It will be'necessary to know 
what sciences we should learn. A little thought 
should show you that immediately we cease to care 
for English degrees, the rulers will prick up their 
cars. * 

Reader : Then what education shall we give ? 

Editor : This has been somewhat considered 
above, but we will consider it a little more. I think 
that we have to improve all our languages. What 
subjects we should learn through them need not be 
elaborated here. Those English books which are 
valuable we should translate into the various Indian 
languages. We should abandon the pretension of 
learning many sciences. Religious, that is ethical, 
education will occupy the first place. Every cultured 
Indian will know in addition to his own provincial 
language, if a Hindu, Sanskrit ; if a Mahomedan, 
Arabic ; if a Parsee, Persian ; and all, Hindi. Some 
Hindus should know Arabic and Persian ; some 
Mahomedans and Parsees, Sanskrit. Several 
Northerners and Westerners should learn Tamil. A 
universal language for India should be Hindi, with 
the option of writing it in Persian or Nagric charac- 
ters. In order that the Hindus and the Mahomedans 
may have closer relations, it is necessary to know 
both the characters. And, if we can do this, we 
can dfive the English language out of the field in 
a short time. All this is necessary for us, slaves. 


Through our slavery the nation has been enslaved, 
and it wiil be free with our freedom. 

Header : The question of religious education 
is very difficult. 

Editok : Yet we cannot do without it. India 
will never be godless. Bank atheism cannot flourish 
in that land. The task is indeed difficult. My 
head begins to turn as I think of religious education. 
Our religious teachers are hypocritical and selfish ; 
they will have to be approached. The Mullas, the 
Dasturs and the Brahmins hold the key in their 
hands, but if they will not have the good sense, 
the energy that we have derived from English 
education will have to be devoted to religious 
education. This is not very difficult. Only the 
fringe of the ocean has been polluted, and it is 
those who are within the fringe who alone need 
cleansing. We who come under this category can 
even cleanse ourselves, because my remarks do not 
apply to the millions. In order to restore India to 
its prestine condition, we have to return to it. In 
our own civilization, there will naturally be pro- 
gress, restrogression, reforms, and reactions ; but 
one effort is required, and that is to drive out 
Western civilization. All else will follow. 



Readeb : When you speak of driving out 
Western civilization, I suppose you will aho say 
that we want no machinery. 

Editor : By raising this question, you have 
opened the wound I had received. When I read 
Mr. Datt's Economic History of India I wept ; 
and, as I think of it, again my heart sickens, It is 
machinery that has impoverished India. It is 
difficult to measure the harm that Manchester has 
-done to us. It is due to Manchester that Indian 
handicraft has all but disappeared. 

But I make a mistake. How can Manchester 
be blamed ? We wore Manchester cloth, and that 
is why Manchester wove it. I was delighted when 
I read about the bravery of Bengal. There are no 
cloth-mills in that Presidency. They were, there- 
fare, able to restore the original hand- weaving 
occupation. It is true Bengal encourages the 
mill-industry of Bombay. If Bengal had proclaim- 
ed a boycott of all machine-made goods, it would 
have been much better. 

Machinery has begun to desolate Europe. 
Ruination is now knocking at the English gates. 
Machinery is the chief symbol of modern civili- 
zation ; it represents a great sin. 

The workers in the mills of Bombay have 
become slaves. The condition of the women working 


in the mills is shocking. When there were no 
mills, these women were not starving. If the 
machinery craze grows in our country, it will 
become an unhappy land. It may be considered^ 
heresy, but I am bound to say that it were better 
for us to send money to Manchester and to use 
flimsy Manchester cloth than to multiply mills in 
India. By using Manchester cloth we would only 
waste our money, but by reproducing Manchester 
in India, we shall keep our money at the price of 
our blood, because our very moral being will be 
sapped, and I call in support of my statement the 
very mill-hands as witnesses. And those who have 
amassed wealth out of factories are not likely to be 
better than other rich men. It would be folly to 
assume that an Indian Rockfeller would be better 
than the American Rockfeller. Impoverished India 
can become free, but it will be hard for an India, 
made rich through immorality, to regain its freedom. 
I fear we will have to admit that moneyed men 
support British rule ; their interest is bound up 
with its stability. Money renders a man helpless. 
The other thing is as harmful as sexual vice. Both 
are poisou, A snakebite is a lesser poison than 
these two, because the former merely destroys the 
body, but the latter destroys body, mind and souL 
We need not, therefore, be pleased with the prospect 
of the growth of the mill-industry. 


Reader: Are the mills, then, to be closed 
down ? 

Editor : That is difficult. It is no easy task 
to do away with a thing that is established. We, 
therefore, say that the non-beginning of a thing is, 
supreme wisdom. We cannot condemn mill-owners, 
we can but pity them. It would be too much to expect 
them to give up their mills, but we may implore them 
not to increase them. If they would be good, 
they would gradually contract their business. They 
can establish in thousands of households the ancient 
and sacred handlooms, and they can buy out the 
cloth that may be thus woven. Whether the 
mill-owners do this or not, people can cease to use 
machine-made goods. 

Reader: You have so far spoken about 
machine-made cloth, bat there are innumerable 
machine-made things. We have either to import 
them or to introduce machinery into our country. 

Editor : Indeed, our gods even are made in 
Germany. What need, then, to speak of matches, 
pins, and glassware ? My answer can be only one. 
What did India do before these articles were intro- 
duced ? Precisely the same should be done to-day. 
As long as we cannot make pins without machinery, 
so long will we do witnout them. The tinsel splen- 
dour of glassware we will have nothing to do with 
and we will make wicks, as of old, with home-grown 
cotton, and use hand-made earthern saucers for 


lamps. So doing, we shall save our eyes and money, 
and will support Swadeshi, and so shall we attain 
Horn Rule. 

It i3not to be conceived that all men will do 
all these things at one time, or that some men will 
give up all machine-made things at once. But, if 
the thought is sound, we will always find ouc what 
we can give up, and will gradually cease to use this. 
What a few may do, others will copy, and the 
movement will grow like the cocoanut of the mathe- 
matical problem. What the leaders do, the popu- 
lace will gladly follow. The matter is neither com- 
plicated nor difficult. You and I shall not wait 
until we can carry others with us. Those will be 
the losers who will not do it, and those who will not 
do it, although tbey can appreciate the truth, will 
deserve to be called cowards. 

Reader : What, then, of the tram-cars and 

Editor : This qestion is now too late. It 
signifies nothing. If we are to do without the 
railways, we shall have to do without the tram- 
cars. Machinery is like a snake-hole which 
may contain from one to a hundred snakes. 
Where there is machinery there are large cities ; 
and where there are large cities, there are tram- 
cars and railways; and there only does one see 
electric light. English villages do not boast any 
of these things. Honest physicians will tell you 


that, where means of artificial locomotion have 
increased, the health of the people has suffered. I 
remember that, when in a European town there was 
a scarcity of money, the receipts of the tramway 
company, of the lawyers and of the doctors, went 
down, and the people were less unhealthy. I cannot 
recall a single good point in connection with machi- 
nery. Books can be written to demonstrate its 

Reader: It is a good point or a bad one that 
ail you are saying will be printed through machi- 
nery ? 

Editor. This is one of those instances which 
demonstrate that sometimes poison is used to kill 
poison. This, then, will not be a good point regard- 
ing machinery, As it expires, the machinery, as it 
were, says to us : " Beware and avoid me. You will 
derive no benefit from me, and the benefit that may 
accrue from printing will avail only those who are 
infected with the machinery-craze/' Do not, there- 
fore, forget the main thing. It is necessary to rea- 
lise that machinery is bad. We shall then be able 
gradually to do away with it. Nature has not pro- 
vided any way whereby we may reach a desired goal 
all of a sudden. If, instead of welcoming machinery 
as a boon, we would look upon it as an evil, it 
would ultimately go. 




Reader : From your views I gather that you 
would form a third party. You are neither an 
extremist nor a moderate. 

Editor: That is a mistake. I do not think of 
a third party at all. We do not all think alike. We 
cannot say that all the moderates hold identical 
views. And how can those who want to serve 
only have a party ? I would serve both the moder- 
ates and the extremists. Where I should differ 
from them, I would respectfully place my position 
before them, and continue my service. 

Reader : What, then, would you say to both 
the parties ? 

Editor : I would say to the extremists : — " I 
know that you want Home Rule for India ; it is 
not to be had for your asking. Everyone will have 
to take it for himself. What others get for me is 
not Home Rule but foreign rule ; therefore, it would 
not be proper for you to say that you have obtained 
Home Rule, if you expelled the English. I have 
already described the true nature of Home Rule. 
This you would never obtain by force of arms. 
Brute-force is not natural to the Indian soil. You 
will have, therefore, to rely wholly on soul-force. 
You must not consider that violence is necessary at 
any stage for reaching our goal." 


I would say to the moderates : — " Mere peti- 
tioning is derogatory ; we thereby confess inferio- 
rity. To say th^t British rule is indispensable, is 
almost a denial of the Godhead We cannot say 
that anybody or anything is indispensable except 
God. Moreover, common sense should tell us that 
to state that, for the time being, the presence of the 
English in India is a necessity, is to make them 

" If the English vacated India bag and 
baggage, it must not be supposed that she would 
be widowed. It is possible that those who are 
forced to observe peace under their pressure would 
fight after their withdrawal. There can be no 
advantage in suppressing an eruption, it must have 
its vent. If, therefore, before we can remain at 
peace, we must fight amongst ourselves, it is better 
that we do so. There is no occasion for a third 
party to protect the weak. It is this so-called 
protection which has unnerved us. Such protection 
can only make the weak weaker. Unless we realise 
this, we cannot have Home Rule. I would 
paraphrase the thought of an English divine and 
say that anarchy under home rule were better than 
orderly foreign rule. Only, the meaning that the 
Jearned divine attached to home rule is different to 
Indian Home Rule according to my conception. 
We have to learn, and to teach others, that we do 


not want the tyranny of their English ruie or 
Indian rule." 

If this idea were carried out both the 
extremists and the moderates could join hands. 
There is no occasion to fear or distrust one 

Reader: What, then, would you say to the 

Editor : To them I would respectfully say: 
" I admit you are my rulers. It is not necessary to 
debate the question whether you hold India by the 
sword or by my consent. I have no objection to 
your remaining in my country, but although you 
are the rulers, you will have to remain as servants 
of the people. It is not we who have to do as you 
wish, bus it is you who have to do as we wish. You 
may keep the riches that you have drained away 
from this land, but you may not drain riches hence- 
forth. Your function will be, if you so wish, to 
police India ; you must abandon the idea of deriv- 
ing any commercial benefit from us. We hold the 
civilization that you support to be the reverse of 
civilization. We consider our civilization to be far 
superior to yours. If you realise this truth, it will 
be to your advantage, and, if you do not, according 
to your own proverb, you should only live in our 
country in the same manner as we do. You must 
not do anything that is contrary to our religions. 
It is your duty as rulers that, for the sake of the; 


Hindus, you should eschew beef, and for the sake 
of the Mahomedans, you should avoid bacon and 
hauu. We have hitherto said nothing, because we 
have been cowed down, but you need not consider 
that you have not hurt our feelings by your conduct. 
We ace not expressing our sentiments either 
through base selfishness or fear, but because it is 
our duty now to speak out boldly. We consider 
your schools and law courts to be useless. We 
want our own ancient schools and courts to be 
restored. The common language of India is not 
English but Hindi. You should, therefore, learH 
it. We can hoid communication with you only in 
our national language. 

" We cannot tolerate the idea of your spending 
money on railways and the military. We see no 
occasion for either. You may fear Russia; we do 
not. When she comes' we will look after her. If 
you are with us, we will then receive her jointly. 
We do not need any European cljth. We will 
manage with articles produced and manufactured 
at home. You may not keep one eye on Manches- 
ter and the other on India. We can work together 
only if our interests are identical. 

" This has not been said to you in arrogance. 
You have great military resources. Your naval 
power is matchless. If we wanted to fight with 
you on your own ground we would be unable to do 
so, but, if the above submissions be not acceptable 


to you, we cease to play the ruled You may, 
if you like, cut us to pieces. You may shatter ug 
at the cannon's mouth. If you act contrary to our 
will, we will not help you and, wifcho it oar help, 
we know that you cannot, move one step jrward. 

*' It is hkely that you will laugh i all this in 
the intoxication of your power. We may not be 
able to disillusion you at once, but, if there be any 
manliness in us, you will see shortly that your in- 
toxication is suicidal, and that your laugh at our 
expense is an aberration of iutetlci. We oelieve 
that, at heart you belong to a religious nation. We 
are living in a land which is the source or. religions. 
How we came together need not be considered, but 
we can make mutual good use of our relations. 

" You English who have come to [ndia are not 
a good specimen of the English natsioj, u«>r can we 
almost half Anglicised Indians, beconsid red a good 
specimen of the real Indian nation. If toe English 
nation were to know all you have done\ it would 
oppose many of your actions. The m-tss of the 
Indians have had few dealings with 5 1. If- you 
will abandon your so-called civilization, and search 
into your own scriptures, you will find that our 
demands are just. Only on conditions of our 
demands being fully satisfied may you remain in 
India, and, if you remain under those conditions we 
shall learn several things* from you, and you will 
learn many from us, So doing, we snail benefit 

• N 


each other and the world. But that will happen 
only when the root of our relationship is sunk in a 
religious soil." 

Reader : What wil you say to the nation ? 
' Editor : Who is the nation ? 

Reader : For our purposes it is the nation 
that you and I have been thinking of, that is, those 
of us who are affected by European civilization, and 
who are eager to have Home Rule. 

Editor : To these I would say : It is only 
those Indians who are imbued with real love who 
will be able to speak to the English in the above 
strain without being frightened, and those only 
can be said to be so imbued who conscientiously 
believe that Indian civilization is the best, and that 
European is a nine days' wonder. Such ephemeral 
civilizations have often come and gone, and will 
continue to do so. Those only can be considered 
to be no imbued, who, having experienced the 
force of the > ii within themselves, will not cover 
before brute-force, and will not, on any account, 
desire bo use brute- force. Those only can be con- 
sidered to nave been so imbued who are intensely 
dissatisfied with the present pitiable condition 
having already drunk the cup of poison. 

If there be only one 'such Indian, he will speak 
as above to the English, and the English will have 
to listen to him. 


These demands are not demands, but they 
show our mental state. We will get nothing by 
asking ; we shall have to take what we want, and 
we need the requisite strength for the effort and 
that strength will be avaiiabe to him only who - 

1. will, ccly on rare occasions, make use of th6 

English language ; 

2. if a lawyer, will give up his profession and 

take up a hand-loom ; 

3. if a lawyer, will devote his knowledge to 

enlightening both his people and the 

4. if a lawyer, will not meddle with the quar- 
rels between parties, but will give up the 
courts and from his experience induce the 
people to do likewise ; 

5. if a lawyer, will refuse to be a judge, as the 

will give up his profession; 

6. if a doctor, will give up medicine, and 

understand that rather than mending 
bodies, he should mend souls; 

7. if a doctor, will understand, that no 

matter to what religion he belongs, it is 
better that bodies remain diseased rather 
than that they are cured through the ins,* 
trumentality of the diabolical vivisection 
that is practised in European schools of 


•8. although a doctor, will take up a hand-loom 
and, if any patients come to him, wiU 
tell them the cause of their diseases, and 
will advise them to remove th6 cause, 
rather than pamper them by giving useless 
drugs ; he will undestand that, if by not 
taking drugs, perchance the patient dies, 
the world will not come to grief, and that 
he will have been really merciful to him ; 

9. although a wealthy man, regardless of his 

wealth, will speak out his mind and fear 
do one ; 

10. if a wealthy man, will devote his money to 
establishing hand-looms, and encourage 
others to use hand-made goods by wearing 
them himself ; 

11. like every other Indian, will know thai 
this if? a time for repentance, expiation 
and mourning ; 

12. like every* other Indian, will know that to 
blame the English is useless, that they 
came because of us, and remain also for 
the same reason, and that they will either 
go or change their nature, only when we 
reform ourselves ; 

13. like others, will understand that, at a time 
of mourning, there can be no indulgence, 
and that, whilst we are in a fallen state, to> 


be in gaol or in banishment is much the 
best ; V 

14. like others, will know that it is superstition 
to imagine it necessary that^ we should 
guard against being imprisoned in order 
that we may deal with the people ; 

15. like others, will know that action is much 
better than speech ; that it is our duty to 
say exactly what we think and face the 
consequences, and that it will be only 
then that we shall be able to impress 
anybody with our speech; 

16. like others, will understand that we will 
become free only through suffering ; 

17. like others, will understand that deporta- 
tion for life to the Andamans is not enough 
expiation for the sin of encouraging 
European civilization ; 

18. like others, will know that no nation has 
risen without suffering; that, even in 
physical warfare, the true test is suffering 
and not the killing of others, much more 
so in the warfare of passive resistance ; 

19. like others, will know that it is an idle 
excuse to say that we will do a thing when 
the others also do it ; that we should do 
what ws know to be right, and that others 
will do it when they see the way ; that when 


I fancy a particular delicacy, I do not wait 
till others taste it ; that to mike a national 
effort and to suffer are in the nature of 
delicacies; and that to suffer under pres- 
sure is no suffering. 
Reader : This is a large order. When will 
all carry it out ? 

Editor : You make a mistake. You and I 
have nothing to do with the others. Let each do 
his duty. If I do my duty, that is, serve myself, 
I shall be able tn k >rve others. Before 1 leave you, 
I will take the liberty of repeating. 

1. Real hom^-ruJe is se'f-rule or self-control. 

2. The way to it is passive resistance: that is 
soul force or love- force. 

3. In order to exert this force, Swadeshi in 

every sense is necessary. 

4. What we want to do should bo done, not 
because we object to the English or that 
we want to retaliate, but because it is our 
duty to do so. Thus, supposing that the 
English remove the salt-tax, restore our 
money, give the highest posts 'o Indians, 
withdraw the English troops, we shall 
cer ainly not use their machine-made 
goods, nor use the English language, nor 
many of their industries. It is worth 
nothing that these things are, in their 


nature, harmful ; hence, we do not want 
them. I bear no enmity towards th© 
English, but I do towards their civiliza- 
In my opinion, we have used the term "Swaraj" 
without understanding its real significance. I have 
endeavoured to explain it as I understand it, and 
my conscience testifies that my life henceforth is 
dedicated to its attainment. 


Some Authorities. 

Testimonies by Eminent Men. 


Some Authorities. 

The following book3 are recommended for perusal 

to follow up the study of the foregoing : — 
11 The Kingdom of God is Within You"— Tolstoy. 
" What is Art T— Tolstoy. 
u Slavery of Our Times "—Tolstoy, 
" The First Step '''—Tolstoy. 
" How Shall We Escape "—Tolstoy. 
" Letter to a Hindoo " — Tolstoy. 
" The White Slaves of England "Sherard. 
" Civilization : Its Cause and Cure " — Carpenter. 
" The Fallacy of Speed "—Taylor. 
" A New Crusade "—Blount. 
" On the Duty of Civil Disobedience " — Thoreau. 
11 Life Without Principle " — Thoreau. 
" Unto This Last "—Buskin. 


" A Joy for Ever " — Uuskin. 

" Duties of Man " — Mazzini. 

" Defence and Death of Socrates "From Plato. 

" Paradoxes of Civilization " — Max Nordau. 

" Poverty anil Un-British Rule in India " — Naoroju 

'* Economic Histovy of India " — Dutt. 

" Village Communities " — Maine. 

Testimonies by Eminent Men 

The following extracts from Mr. Alfred Webb's 
valuable collection, if the testimony g<ven therein 
be true, show shat the ancient Indian civilization. 
has little to learn from the modern : — 

Yictor Cousin, 

(1792—1867). Founder of Systematic Electricism 
in Philosophy. 

" On the other hand when we read with atten- 
tion the poetical and philosophical movements of 
the East, above all, those of India, which are 
beginning to spread in Europe, we discover there 
so many truths, and truths so profound, and which 
make such a contrast with the meanness of the 
results at which the European genius has sometimes 
stopped, that we are constrained to bend the kne- 
before that of the East, and 10 see in this cradle of 
the human race the native land of the highest 


J Seymour Keay, M. P. 
Banker in India and India Agent. 
{Writing in 9 1883.) 
" It cannot be too well understood that our . 
position in India has never been in aiy degree that 
of civilians bringing civilization to s-ivage races. 
When we landed in Lndia we found there a hoary 
civilization, which, during the progress of thousands 
of years, had flitted itself into the character and ad- 
justed itself to the wants of highly intellectual races. 
The civilization was not prefunctory, but uni- 
versal and ali-pervading — furnishing the country 
not only with political systems but with social and 
domestic institutions of the most ramified descrip- 
tion. The beneficed nature of these institutions as 
a whole may be judged of from their effects on the 
character of the Hindu race. Perhaps there are no 
other people in the world who show so much in 
their characters the advantageous effects of their 
own civilization. They are shrewd in business, 
acute in reasoning, thrifty, religious, sober, charit- 
able, obedient to parents, reverential to old age, 
amiable, law-abiding, compassionate towards the 
helpless, and patient under suffering. " 

Friedrich Max Muelier, LL.D. 

"If I were to ask myself from what literature 
we hear in Europe, we who have been nurtured al- 
most exclusively on the thoughts of Greeks and 


Boinans, and of one Semetic race, the Jewish may 
draw that corrective which is most wanted in order 
to make our inner life more perfect, more compre- 
hensive, more universal, in fact more truly human, 
a life, not for this life only but a transfigured and 
eternal life — again I should point to India." 

Michael G. Mulhall, FR.S.S. 
Statistics {1899). 
Prison population per 100,000 of inhabitants : 
* Several European States ... 100 to 230 

England and Wales 90 

India 38 

— " Dictionary of Statistics," Michael G. Mulhati, 
£7fi.S.S.., houtledge and Sons, 1899. 

Colonel Thomas Munro. 
Thirty -two years' service in India. 
" If a good system of agriculture, unrivalled 
manufacturing skill, a capacity to produce whatever 
can contribute to convenience or luxury ; schools 
established in every village, for teaching, reading, 
writing and arithmetic ; the general practice of 
hospitality and charity among each other ; and, above 
all, treatment of the female sex, full of confidence, 
respect and delicacy, are among the signs which 
denote a civilised people, then the Hindus are no* 
inferior to the nations of Europe ; and if civilization 
^is to become an article of trade between the two 



countries, I am convinced that this country [Eng- 
land] will gain by the import cargo." 
Frederick Yon Schlegel. 

" It cannot be denied that the early Indians 
possessed a knowledge of the true God ; all their 
writings are replete with sentiments and expressions 
noble, clear and severely grand, as deeply conceived 
and reverently expressed as in any human language 

in which men have spoken of their God 

Among nations possessing indigenous philosophy 
and metaphysics, together with an innate relisn for 
these pursuits, 3uch as at present characterises Ger- 
many ; and in olden times, was the proud distinction 
of Greece, Hindustan holds the first rank in point 
of time " 

Sir William Wedderburn, Bart. 

" The Indian village has thus for centuries re- 
mained a bulwark against political disorder, and the 
home of the simple domestic and social virtues. No 
wonder, therefore, that philosophers and historians 
have always dwelt lovingly on this ancient institu- 
tion which is the natural social unit and the best 
type of rural life ;' self-contained, industrious, peace- 
loving, conservative in the best sense of the word. 

I think you will agree with me that there is 

much that is both picturesque and attractive in this 
glimpse of social and domestic life in an Indian vil- 
lage. It is a harmless and nappy form of human ex- 
istence. Moreover, it is not without good practical 


J. Young. 

Secretary, Siivon Mechanics' Institutes. 
{Within recent years). 

" Those races, fthe Indian viewed from a moral 
-aspect] are peihaps the most remarkable people in 
the world. Taey breathe an atmosphere of moral 
purity, which cannot bat excite admiration, and this 
isj3specia( > the case with the poorer classes who, 
notwithstanding the privations of their humble lot, 
appear to ha happy and contented. True children of 
nature, they live on from day to day, taking no 
thought of to-morrow and thankful for the simplefare 
which Providence has provided f jr them. It is curi- 
ous to witness the spectacle of coolies of both sexes 
returning home at nightfall after a hard day's work 
often lasting from sunrise to sunset. In spite of fa- 
tigue from the effects of the unremitting toil, they 
are, for the most part, gay and animated, conversing 
cheerfu'iy together and occasionally breaking into 
snatches oi l^ht-hoatted song. Yet what awaits 
them on their return to the hovels which they call 
home? A dish of rice for food, and the fl >or for a 
bed. Domestic felicity appears to be the rule among 
the Natives, and this is the more strange when the 
customs of marriage are taken into account, parents 
arranging all such matters. Many Indian households 
afford examples of tne married state in its highest 
degree of perfection. This may be due to the 


teachings of the Shastras, and to the strict injunc- 
tions which they inculcate with regard to marital 
obligations; but it is no exaggeration to say that 
husbands are generally devote" bed to their 

wives, and in many instances the Utter have the 
most exalted conception of their duties towards 
their husbands." 

Abbe J A. Dubois. 

Missionary in Mysore. Extracts from letter dated 
Seringa pat am, 15 th December, 1820. 
" The authority of married women within their 
houses is chiefly exerted in preserving good, order 
and peace among the persons who compose their 
families: and a great many among them discharge 
this important duty with a prudence and a discre- 
tion which have scarcely a parallel in Europe. I 
have known families composed of between thirty 
and forty persons, or more, consisting of grown-up 
sons and daughters, all married and all having chil- 
dren, living together under the superintendence of 
an old matron— their mother or mother-in-law, 
The latter, by ^ood management, r v.: d by accom- 
modating herself to tne temper of the daughters-in- 
law, by using, according to circumstances, firmness 
or forbearance, succedeed in preserving peace and 
harmony during many years amongst so many 
females, who had all jarring interests, and still more 
jarring tempers. I ask you wbetner it would be 


possible to attain the same end, in the same circum- 
stances, in our countries, vvhere it is scarcely possible 
to make two women living under the same foot to 
agree together. 

" In fact, there is perhaps no kind of honest 
employment in a civilised country in which the 
Hindu females have not a due share. Besides the 
management of the household, and the care of the 
family, which (as airead noticed) under their con- 
trol, the wives and daughters of husbandmen attend 
and assist their husbands and fathers in the labours 
of agriculture. Those of tradesmen assist theirs in 
carrying on their trade. Merchants are attended 
and assisted by theirs in their shops. Many females 
are shopkeepers on their own account and without 
a knowledge of the alphabet or of the decimal scale, 
they keep by other means their accounts in excel- 
lent order, and are considered as still shrewder than 
the males themselves in their commercial dealings.''' 


Books on Liberty and Freedom 

The Ideal of Swaraj. 

In Education and Government by Nirpendra Chandra Banerjee 
with an introduction by C. F. Andrews. 

Those who are out of sheer prejudice and incapacity for 
politioal thought, sneer, at the goal of Swaraj proclaimed by 
the National Congress as merely a destructive and at best a 
visionary ideal as well as those who in spite of their approval 
of the goal are unable to visualise it in oonorete oontents, 
will do will to read this interesting and instructive book 
by an ardent Bengali patriot and ex-school master. The 
author has political insight, and faith in the country's 
capacity. He reoognises that the soul of India is in her 
numerous villages in rural centres and has given out practical 
suggestions for national reooustruotion along sound lines. 

Mr. Audrews has wricten an introduction to the volume 

wherein he has dealt with the value of the 8w»raj ideal and 

his own conception of the same. It is a useful publication 

worthy to be placed in the hands of our young men and 

women.— Hindu. . 

Price Re. i. 

India's Will to Freedom. 

Ey Lala Lajpat Rai. A collection of Writings and Addresses 

on the present situation and iba wora before us. "We in 

India should, one and all, take a vow that whether we have 

to lay down our life, whether we are mutilated or banged, 

whether our women and children are mal-treated, our desire 

for Swaraj will never grow a little any the less. Every ohild 

of this land, whatever his religion or persuasion, should 

swear that, as lorg as there is life in his limba, or breath in 

hi3 nostrils, he would strive for national liberty. " 

Price K», Z-o. 

GAiNESH 81 Co., Publishers, Madras. 

Books on Liberty and Freedom 

Footsteps of Freedom 

By. James H Cousin?. "An tb-r stunt which will alto- be 
v rgofoualy vamped by the opponent of dyarehy, io fact of alt 
reform will pa the absolute necessity of politically educating 
the m'aBseg of India before giving them auy measure of 
v "1 i"*l freedom. In a bo^k of charming essays which he 
h&ti j ist. publi-b* -ri thn ueh Mespre. Ganesb & Co , of Madras, 
under the title of " Footsteps of Freedom" Mr. James Cousins 
attacks this cartioular fallacy and shatters it convincingly." 
Ditcher in Capital. Prica Rs. 2. 

Freedom's Battle 

A comprehensive collection of Writings and Speeches of Mahat- 
ma Gandhi on the present situation including The Khilafat 
Wmng«. The Punjab A^^nv, Bwaraj, Hindu-Muslim Unity, 
Indians Overseas, The Drp r esned Classes. Non-co-operation, 
etc., with an historical introduction by Mr. C. Kajagopala- 

" The war that tha peopU of India have dseUrrd and which 
will purify and consolidate India, una forge for her * true 
and stable liberty is a war with the latest and most effective 
weapon. In this war, what has bitherti been in tb» w.~>rld 
an undesirable but necessary incident in freedrm's battles, 
the killing of innooent men has been eliminated ; *• d that 
which is the true essential for forg»ng liberty, the nelf-puri- 
fif-ation and self-strengthening of man and women h*9 been 
kept pure and unalloyed." 

The best preparation for any one who desires to take part in 
the great battle now gomg on is a silent study of the writ- 
ing! and speeches collected herein. Price Ra 2-8. 

GANESH 81 Co., Publishers, Madras. 

Library Bureau Cat no. 1137 




gQ02 00411 5221 


DS 480. 45 . G253 1922 
Gandhi, 1869-1948. 
Indian home rule